All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Watched again the other week. First time, I saw it at a press preview in a big theatre -- this time, in quarantine with my roommates. Funny contrast.
It's interesting you mention character, Col, because to me that's where the movie doesn't have much to offer. My vibe was just a fun, silly, weird chamber piece with two increasingly mad men who are more cypher/symbol than rooted personalities. I thought their defining characteristics were just "older man" and "younger man." Not that I'm expressing that as a criticism!
I think there was much more to them than just their age. Perhaps, I'm giving to much credit to meticulously accurate language of the era and the dedication to getting that period right but how each one expressed themselves (or didn't) spoke (pun intended, sorry) volumes. All their little foibles, tics and rituals, the power dynamic between the two and how that not only shifts but constantly oscillates throughout the film, to me, speak to acutely drawn human, albeit heightened characters.
You are right in that they are functioning as theme/symbols just as much as actual people but to me that gave them more dimension. This is a very specific world they are inhabiting and are thus a reflection of it. Above anything, they are memorable...although, while I'm a big fan of him and his boldness as an actor, I think Pattinson is a little out of his depth during parts of his "rage" scenes.
I saw this when it came out. I went in wanting to like it, as I liked The Witch, however, everything about this movie came off as forced to me. Like it was trying too hard and it felt very artificial. I especially disliked the dialogue, not the "language of the era", it just felt like someone went over it a lot of times to make it sound polished, but it had the opposite effect on me. It felt very constructed and fake.
Well, I did watch it and got through the entire movie in 1 sitting, so that's good.
The movie looks very good, and I can only imagine how good it looked on the Big Screen. The shots were all thought through so well, with so many different angles. Impressive for sure.
Pattinson and Dafoe both did a great job. Dialogue was very strong, although I noticed both messed up their accents a few times, Pattinson more so, but great overall performances from both.
Story-wise, this was rough for me, as there's very little story. Things sure do go off the rails once Pattinson's character takes a drink, and I had no choice but watch, waiting for...hmmm...I'm not sure what I was waiting for, as I really had no clue where this was going to go. Where it did go was rather shocking to me, but things were already so whacko, the finale really didn't hit me as hard as I thought it would.
I give Robert Eggers all the credit in the world for creating something so "different", but in that same breath, I have to say the film really wasn't for me and I have no interest in ever watching it again.
Grade - B
To ski or not to ski...that's not even a question.
I hated this film. The atmosphere was majestic. The set up was great. Everything was in place and at the end I was like “WTF did I just watch?”
The dialogue might as well have been in any other language without subtitles and I would’ve retained about as much. Just couldn’t understand them at all.
Eggers has an uncanny ability to set your mood with his visuals and soundtrack. The relentless foghorn was great. I just felt this didn’t go anywhere. It wasn’t for me, but I can see why people like to talk about it.