Avaliações de usuários

It started off intriguing, suspenseful, and interesting, but then it started to become stale, repetitive, bland, with improbable circumstances, absence of logic, and riddled with plot and technical issues.

And after a slowly paced 100 minutes of an incredible performance by DaFoe - the only reason I kept watching, the ending is not worth the ink the convoluted lazy screenplay was written with. It's all filler with very little substance, and merits no rhyme or reason this film was even made. It just all fades away as a waste of DaFoe's talents, and my invested time to watch this nonsense with hopes of some sort of grand finale.

Classified as a psychological artsy-type thriller, there's been many films like this done before and much better. As the second only film directed, produced and (co-)written film by Vasilis Katsoupis, his work was impressive, especially his camera shots, close-ups and angle choices. He captured the very best of DaFoe's talents. But Katsoupis could only do so much with Ben Hopkins' screenplay. Had Hopkins put more structure to the story, better plot development, and given us a more concrete conclusion, this film could've easily been more compelling than contrived. Sadly the results as-is, are a huge disappointment and I can't recommend this at all. It's a very generous 5/10, all going to DaFoe and Katsoupis doing their best with the terrible script they had to work with.

Dafoe is excellent in this film. If you are a fan of his, I would definitely give this one a chance. The story is quite meandering at times due to a relatively plotless script, but I have to admit, when Dafoe gets to shine, he is impossible to take your eyes off from. I wish the thematic elements regarding "art is for keeps" was more consistent throughout the piece, and I wish some side characters weren't just throw away characters to expand the run time. This takes place in one location. If you don't like those types of movies or have no interest in Willem Dafoe as an actor, you really don't need to watch this one. Oh, and shout out to the pigeon for contributing to one of the funniest scenes of the year.

In the pandemic-era film "Inside", Willem Dafoe's impressive range and versatility are on full display as he plays the character of Nemo, an art thief trapped in a luxurious Manhattan penthouse after the security system malfunctions. The film alternates between being a survival thriller and a twisted exercise of the mind, exploring themes of isolation, anxiety, and the need for human connection. While the movie touches on these deeper themes, it also delves into the idea of art and its inseparable bond to the human will. Nemo's inherent urge to create and express is showcased as he sketches on shreds of paper or creates his own mural while trapped in the penthouse. The freedom of the New York City skyline, just beyond the panes of unbreakable glass, is a cruel tease, making art a soothing balm in his confined world. Dafoe's physical and psychological transformation is both harrowing and fascinating to watch. Though Nemo's character may be a tad too opaque, the audience is submerged into his experience, feeling the palpable sense of confinement and being cut off from the outside world.

At its core, "Inside" poses thoughtful questions surrounding the purpose of art, keeping its answers vague enough for the audience to wrestle with. And while there are brief moments of cheerfulness, such as when the "Macarena" song by Los Del Río plays while the refrigerator door is left open for 20 seconds, the overall feeling of the movie is dark and dour. Overall, "Inside" is a pandemic-era film that explores the deeper themes of isolation, anxiety, and the need for human connection through the lens of art and survival. Dafoe's impressive range and talent at display together with the exploration of the human will to create and express make it a must-watch. There is no creation without destruction!

I went into this movie knowing nothing about it. As we get into the premise, I was intrigued by this interesting setting for a survival movie. I've seen many before, but they usually involve an island or a blizzard. The premise introduces some creative obstacles for the character.

Unfortunately, this movie has nothing to offer other than the premise (and a good performance). Movies like these with a tiny cast and one setting are usually very short. This is an hour and 45 minutes long. It should have been no longer than an hour and 20.

I'm usually not one to complain about movies being too long, I think they should be as long as they need to be. But man, I wanted to cry from how bored I was. I started to really feel it halfway through. And I even started preparing myself to be patient for almost another hour. It didn't help. I was dying and just wanted the movie to finish.

Every scene is far too long. Everything is so repetitive. I kept hoping for something more, but there is nothing more. It throws in some symbolism as if that's enough to make up for the complete lack of plot intrigue.

I chose this movie over Shazam 2 because I figured it would be bad. But I would have rather watched a bad superhero movie than a technically well-made bore-fest. (1 viewing, opening Thursday 3/16/2023)

First off I really enjoyed this movie. It held my attention the whole time and Willem Dafoe did a great job at keeping my focus.

Movies in a single location with minimal cast are incredibly difficult to pull off but I think this one managed it.

The cinematography was spot on and the photography was there too. The acting made sense the script didn't feel forced and possibly the best atmospheric soundtrack in a very long time with use of tones rather than music tracks.

Now don't get me wrong I'm not fanboying all over this as there were a number of issues that arose but you'll have to watch it to make your mind up about them.

This movie will no doubt be boring to anyone who's a fan of say Michael Bay or Vin Diesel as it isn't an action packed joy ride.

For people who like something a bit weird but focused I'd definitely recommend it.

Not too many movies leave me with the "what a waste of time" feeling, but this was one. Although the acting was good, there were just too many ridiculous things going on, and it was just too draggy. And like the usual sucker I am for watching until the end, I kept hoping "well maybe the ending will justify this colossal waste of time"; but no. Run away from this movie! You are better off watching the sequel to "Dumb and Dumber", or even one of the really lousy "Pink Panther" movies with Steve Martin. I don't know why imdb requires so many characters now for reviews, so I'll just say I warned you.

Plenty of people have commented already, both positively and negatively. I'm in the positive camp. I'll try to help you figure out if this could be for you.

Art, life, human experience, ecology, our place in the world and in our minds. That, for me, is what this film is mostly about.

Arthouse, yes, but gorgeously so.

If you are a student of film or cinematography or photography this movie keeps serving up shots you wish you could create.

Dafoe's performance is brilliant - in a subtle and internal way.

If you thought Aranofsky's Mother was worth watching, this is for you (although completely dissimilar). If you have enjoyed Baraka, Samsara and the rest, this is probably for you.

In terms of plot, it is minimal and has no thrills to speak of.

I think it's important to say that there's nothing wrong with not liking the film, feeling bored by it, not wanting to see it. Those who will enjoy it are not above anyone else - those who are disinterested are not below anyone else.

I hope this has helped someone.

Willem Dafoe plays Nemo, a thief who gets trapped inside a luxury penthouse after stealing some artworks. He has to survive on his own, with only his memories and some fish for company. The film is a tense and gripping exploration of isolation, identity and art, with Dafoe delivering a masterful performance that carries the whole film. Director Vasilis Katsoupis creates a suffocating atmosphere that keeps the audience on edge, while also offering some glimpses of humor and humanity. The film is not for everyone, as it can be slow-paced, repetitive and bleak at times, but it is a unique and daring experiment that showcases Dafoe's talent and charisma.

A high-end art thief becomes trapped inside a luxury, high-tech penthouse in New York's Times Square after his heist doesn't go as planned. Locked inside with nothing but priceless works of art, he must use all his cunning and invention to survive.

If you've seen the trailer, Inside is exactly what you think it is: a man trapped in a high-end condo with no avenues of escape. The no-frills, approach to the story hits the ground running with Willem DaFoe's Nemo trapped within the first 10 minutes. These 10 minutes are enough to establish the only necessaries the audience needs: art thief, in a penthouse loaded with expensive artwork, owner out of the country. The other 95 minutes showcase Nemo's ingenuity, his many setbacks, and his decaying thought process as the penthouse deteriorates into a wasteland of filth, a visual representation of his mental state. As a one man show, it's incredible to watch DaFoe's Nemo work through his obstacles and observe how he navigates his failures. As a movie, it's longer than it needs to be, wearing its premise thin before Nemo reaches his final conclusion.

Willem DaFoe is a one man force in this movie. While it's been done countless times throughout cinema to varying degrees (Sam Rockwell in Moon, Redford in All Is Lost, Tom Hardy in Locke), the concept of seeing only one person on the screen for the vast majority of the performance is a tall task for an actor and DaFoe's slow descent into madness is expertly conveyed. An actor who's shown multiple times over his career to play characters that are a bit unhinged or or coming apart at the scenes, DaFoe calls upon those past roles to portray a man losing his grip on reality the more desperate he becomes. The internet loves to poke fun at DaFoe's crazy eyes and wild performances, and Inside shows just how good he is with these types of roles.

Directed by first time director Vasilis Katsoupis, Inside shows promise in an interesting directing career while also displaying some flaws. A one person story that carries across an feature length runtime is a difficult enough feat for a veteran storyteller; Katsoupis tackles it right out of the gate. Inside is highlighted by its minimalist nature; the only things the viewer has to focus on is Willem DaFoe and the penthouse. To its credit, the production design is well thought out, lending a sense of someone with far too much money having just enough items scattered about to give Nemo a fighting chance at survival. Katsoupis and screenwriter Ben Hopkins dole out enough small victories (and a number of setbacks) to keep audiences baited and rooting for the thief.

Overall, Inside is a decent feature debut from Katsoupis. At 105 minutes, the pacing drags at times due to not having enough material to justify its runtime. Had 15-20 minutes been shaved from the story, viewers would've experienced a much more lean, faster moving story of a man desperate to escape. As it stands, though, it's a great vessel to spotlight Willem DaFoe's talents and let him shine. Great production design, an intriguing premise, and an actor talented enough to hold the audience's attention for the majority of the time, the film is good enough weeknight watch after work.

This is the first review I've ever written on here. That's how bad this movie was. This movie went beyond a "slow burn" and just ended up being slow...and lifeless...and pointless. I can't believe this movie was brought to fruition. I love a well done indie movie, but I don't even think that was the movie's intention. A complete nonsensical, unexplained snooze fest. I don't feel like the movie speaks to Willem Dafoe's acting skills, I think it speaks entirely to the writers, directors, and/or producers vision(s). I could even get behind the single set and very limited dialogue, but I absolutely could not get behind how unnecessarily slow this movie was.

I've seen movies that didn't take place in the same location and were infinitely more boring. And for a one man show in a single location it was sufficiently interesting.

There might be some deeper ideas behind but really, I don't care if there are because it was plenty plausible if it is just a story about a dude stuck in a penthouse. I don't agree being a commentary about the pandemic. Nobody was this locked inside. Once every two days I found a reason to get out of the house and as long as you had the little document filled out, it was all good. If it's a commentary on loneliness, it is never by force, like here. If it's a commentary about wealthy people, ha!

Dafoe was really in to it. The director shows potential but it's still too early.

"Inside" holds great potential in its opening act, successfully capturing the viewer's attention with its intriguing premise. However, as the narrative progresses, it falls short of expectations, leaving the audience disillusioned. The proficient acting of Willem Dafoe serves as a beacon of hope, pulling the audience back into the story with his unpredictable character choices.

Regrettably, the film takes a sharp turn in the third act, as the plot unravels into complete incoherence. The final act takes place in a "Smart Home," and despite claims of the film being a work of art, the storyline fails to elicit any interest or excitement from the audience, ultimately resulting in a lackluster experience.

The potential displayed in the beginning is ultimately not realized, and the film leaves much to be desired. While the standout performance of Dafoe offers a glimmer of hope, the nonsensical and tedious nature of the latter part of the film leaves a lot to be desired.

This film is a metaphor for mental illness.

Think of Dafoe like Van Gogh.

A wonderful talent, trapped within the torments of his own mind.

Because, not only is he an art thief (exoterically speaking), he is also a very talented artist, in and of himself.

"All the time that will come after this moment." (from one of the art installations on the wall)

Suggests he is locked in a state of anxiety - as anxiety is a state in which you are stuck dwelling on the future.

His anxiety, being induced from the desire to escape from his mental prison, as he suffers from an illness on the schizophrenic spectrum.

Thus, if you consider the progressive state of his appearance, in the film, as a reflection of how society sees him...things start to make a little more sense.

Remember, everything starts to go wrong, when he can't find the "self portrait".

Suggesting he has lost his sense of self.

Thus, all of this is actually going on inside his own head.

Upon losing his sense of self, he loses his connection with the group supporting him from the outside.

He can still see the outside world, but can't engage with it.

Ask yourself: why he would have access to all the security cameras in the building, if it wasn't all meant to be esoteric???

He can only engage with the items in the prison of his own making...as he desperately tries to free himself from it.

Anyone who has read RD Laing's illuminating text "The Divided Self", will understand that the film acts as a metaphor, particularly, for schizophrenia.

Something which can be seen portrayed in many symbols present in the film.

For example, the picture of the guy taped to a wall with duct tape.

How he dresses up as a shaman (note: shamanism is the art of entering a schizoid state at will...for the purposes of prophecy, healing, etc.), and engages in a ritual, from which the mural he scrawls on the wall emerges (like a cave painting).

And how he ends up studying William Blake.

Hopkins and Katsoupis play with a series of dichotomies, throughout the film, in order to illustrate it's esoteric nature.

On the one hand, we have the dichotomy between "outsider" and "insider" art.

The "outsider" art being that of his own...the crude art forms of folk art or art brut, for example.

Like his shamanic wall art; the goggles he fashions from the broken pieces of the art of others; the piece that had taken the place of his self portrait; and, of course, the presence of Blake, as being representative of this class.

With the "insider" art being all the modern art installations present in the condo.

Modern art is created by artists "inside" the capitalist art machine.

The value of their art comes from the complex narratives they apply to their pieces.

Thus, meaning is imposed from the inside, with it's value, largely, coming from the narrative connected to the piece, and the identity of the artist, themselves.

For this reason, they, often, command very high prices...and so are purchased as capital investments by the rich...which puts them out of reach to those "outside" of the system.

Hence, them being in collections like the one we have curated for this film.

Which brings us to the second overarching dichotomy, of the rich vs the poor; the wealthy vs the impoverished; the haves vs the have nots.

The aforementioned dichotomy is a reflection of this, but so are other aspects of the film, as well.

For instance, the shot of The Workers, by Adrian Paci (you can read about the meaning behind this piece yourself).

The tower he builds, to reach the skylight- which is an obvious reference to Hans Weingartner's film The Edukators, where a group of activists undertake a similar project, as a message to the wealthy elite they are targeting in that film.

Nemo's mention of one of the artist's being a Pritzker Prize winning architect.

As that prize- considered to be the Nobel Prize of architecture- is both funded, and awarded, by some of the world's most wealthy individuals.

And, of course, the scenario of a struggling artist, working as an art thief, itself.

The skylight escape attempt, seems to be a reference to the unsolved art heist at the Montreal Museum Of Fine Art, during which the thieves utilized a skylight to enter (and possibly exit) the building.

Such heists- like the one at the Isabella Gardner Museum in Boston- were often undertaken by organized crime syndicates...who would ransom the stolen pieces to authorities, in return for the release of one of their comrades.

Giving both, his role as an art thief some context...and offering an explanation as to why "Number 3", left him behind, in a secondary sense.

Remember, good art incorporates symbols that can have multiple meanings, read in a variety of different ways.

Even Dafoe's character's name has meaning.

As Nemo is a reference to the Little Nemo character from Winsor McCay's early 1900's comic strip Dream Of A Rarebit Fiend- in which Little Nemo traverses the realm of dreams and nightmares, where he is forced to confront his phobias, shortcomings, and hypocrisies.

With our Nemo, here, likewise, being fashioned as such a psychopomp.

Something that is evidenced by the inclusion of a replica of artist Rayyane Tabet's Steel Rings sculpture.

Which is a piece designed to replicate the Trans-Arabian Pipeline- the only object to cross the borders of five different countries.

Meaning that, like a psychopomp (and shamans...and, arguably, art thieves, as well), it too, is a transgressor of boundaries.

So, considering the arguments advanced here...it's safe to say that we can place Katsoupis' film amidst some very lofty company.

Films like Hitchcock's Vertigo, and Raoul Ruiz's Le Territoire.

Both of which deal with similar issues, in a form that can be engaged with on both an esoteric and exoteric level, like this film.

The fact that Hopkins & Katsoupis have the film go full circle, to end on the same note on which it began, could even be argued to be a subtle homage to Vertigo- in which spirals and reflections are inherent themes.

Not to mention, that it is a common thematic (read: mystical) element of esoteric symbolism.

With that being said, however, I don't think this film is quite as perfect as those two films (considering they are two of the greatest films ever made, and all).

But it's still pretty darn great.

And certainly undeserving of the flack that certain- less academic- viewers have been imposing upon it.

So give it a chance.

While pondering on it, like you would any other complex work of art.

8.5 out of 10.

Willem Dafoe has defined his career with a lot of risky ventures, especially when it comes to characters heavily seeking some form of self enlightenment. With his newest project, he takes on the grotesqueries of art and life by showcasing the canvas of his disheveled and imperfect body.

Dafoe plays a near over the hill Art thief who is trapped in the luxurious apartment of a well to do art dealer. Pretentious and lacking function, the apartment serves as an artistic representation of the modern capitalist mindset. While we can see the flashy and eye pleasing layers from the surface, it lacks functionality and depth. You can't survive on condiments and crackers, and what exactly is the point of a heavily chlorinated reflecting pool.

From an allegorical sense, the art in the apartment encapsulates the modern human condition. All of the art misrepresents the human form, twisting the subject or obstructing the view, never allowing us to see a perfect representation. We never truly get to see the people in the artistic works for who they are...much like Dafoe's character. We know he is intrepid, but what life must a person live where he is removed from the world yet so easily forgotten? At one point he claims each man is his own island. His character might as well be on another planet.

It's an interesting work to say the least as Dafoe descends into madness, eating dog food and fish, making up oratories of the apartment staff who frequent the building. We see the trajectory of life and death as Dafoe kills the expensive fish for nourishment and watches an injured pigeon pass away. Eventually the home turns into one of the pieces of art adorning the over the top apartment, gruesome and discombobulated.

I commend Dafoe for always taking on these sorts of projects, but it can be disturbing to see what an artist is willing to put himself through. I'm also thankful the ending was somewhat simple and direct, for I was fearful it might give us a rather wink-wink kind of pretentious ending which was frequently eluded to due to the type of art on display. Thankfully the film makers thought better of it.

This film is pretty straight forward. You already understand the plot. You already should know what to expect. This isn't a crime caper. This isn't a heist film. This isn't an escape story. It's about being prisoner with very little options at your disposal. Trying to survive and not loose your sanity.

If you think you won't find this kind of story interesting enough to sit through for 1hr and 45mins than don't attempt to watch it, because you'll clearly find it boring. If you do think you would like to, I can assure you, this film with keep you entertained because it tells this story very well.

Defoe does a great job in this, as expected. It's a simple plot but it leaves you wondering just what else he'll think of next, only to be disappointed. This kind of movie is certainly not for everyone. There's no action. Very little dialog worth noting. But it executes the the plot perfectly imo.

I enjoyed it. I wasn't amazed because there's nothing amazing to this, but I was thoroughly entertained through out the film based on Defoe's performance and trying to imagine what it must feel like to be in his position. What one must think about or do. It's intriguing to be honest.

A nice change of pace for a change. Solid movie and a slow burn.

7/10.

An art thief attempts to steal some artwork from a posh residence in Manhattan. Challenging, right? More challenging than you thought, buster. In a case of man vs. Technology where the latter emerges triumphant "Inside" shows how crime doesn't pay and how. Willem Dafoe is a natural as the crook who gets his comeuppance in long and tedious detail where scarcity and endurance are the day to day realities in an environment of wealth and plenty. Unfortunately the filmmakers seemed to have wanted the viewer to get a feel of the daily ordeal of Nemo and decided to make the length of the movie represent it. This would have been better and would have packed more punch as a short. One of the finer and unique flicks of recent times this interesting case study is worth the watch. "I'm going to heaven on the hillside..."