The Double (2013) User Reviews

Creative film making

[cinematic_aficionado · 7/10 · 24 April 2014]

What happens if you are a genuinely nice person? Willing to go the extra mile for others, always submissive to the wishes of your family and are generally a nice guy. You are taken for granted and treated like dirt. By your folks, colleagues and even the girl you so fancy treats you as a nonexistent entity.

As if this was not discouraging enough, a new colleague joins who is identical to you in appearance but has the completely opposite personality.

A smart telling of the Dostoevsky novel about a person who has the capacity to tolerate everything but his own double whose existence causes him a dilemma: continue to silently tolerate everything or change and adapt.

Perhaps not the easiest of movies to watch but its quirky wit and creative cinematography will win you over.

Flawed, but too much criticism given for the wrong reasons

[svenrufus · 6/10 · 9 April 2014]

So many of the reviews I've seen for this focus on the fact that The Double seems to reference so many other films - one particularly scathing one dismissed it as a trawl through the director's DVD collection. I always feel that how I feel about a film has to be based on whether it looks good, makes sense and stands up to viewing in it's own terms, not in relation to other films that I may or may not have seen. It's unfair to dismiss this simply because of the obvious nods to Brazil, or the Fight Club-esque aspects of it. (I was only 7 when Eraserhead came out, and saw it as a young teen, so can't even judge whether that comparison is valid) The real question is 'Does it stand up as a film in it's own terms, notwithstanding these references'? The design and visual feel of the film are quite striking - yes, I've seen it before, but that doesn't stop it being effective in it's own right. You could almost say that the monotone palette/low lighting are becoming shorthand for some kind of dystopic view of the world. I can live with that.

The pacing and direction of the film are also pretty strong. I particularly enjoyed the use of sound tricks such as footsteps not stopping when people stopped walking - it doesn't jar, it more adds to the sense of overbearing lack of control for the main character, unable to stop or control events around him. The photography was great, I really enjoyed 'watching' the film. I've got no problem with The Double from that side.

However, where it does fall flat for me, and in this crucial respect does not stand up as a solid film in it's own right, is that the story just does not seem to be robust enough to withstand much scrutiny. With the other films that have been used as comparisons to this, the story catches you off guard, but when re-examined, still holds a logical consistency, or at least maintains the capacity for offering an interpretation that makes sense in that respect. But for The Double, there is a big gap in the film's internal coherence, so that on leaving the cinema I was just left thinking 'No, but for that to work, then this would need to have happened, and why did they behave like this when that happened, and ...' etc.

It's not just that there may be some ambiguity to it, which I'm fine with - more problematic is that whatever kind of interpretation that you look for doesn't seem to fit throughout the film, and different interpretations, different narratives are needed at different points of the film. If you try to chase through to the end with any one interpretation, you are left hanging.

So for me, the criticism that focuses on the referential nature of the film are missing the more crucial weakness that it presents us with. The direction, style and tone are all great, and it was a treat to watch, but the lack of attention to the presentation of the story, to offer it in a way where even unanswered questions could possibly have a logical albeit uncertain answer, undermines what was otherwise a good film.

It's a real pity. This gets a 6 from me - it could have got 8 or 9 if the whole film had matched the quality of the directing, but the weakness in the storyline drags it right back down into mediocrity.

Interesting premise, but alienating film

[estebangonzalez10 · 5/10 · 30 May 2014]

"Look at me, look at him. He stole my face."

I don't know why this film didn't engage me as it has most people, but there was just something about it and its characters that simply alienated me. The Double is Richard Ayoade's follow up to Submarine, and it feels heavily influenced by other works, especially from directors like David Lynch and Terry Gilliam. It is actually an adaptation of an 1800's novella written by Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Ayoade adapted it with a unique and clever style. There is a lot of dark humor involved and it also has a philosophical undertone. Despite being influenced by all these works, the film still feels unique and innovative, but it just didn't resonate with me. I'm just not a big fan of these surreal films that don't follow a classical narrative style, and The Double is just that, it plays out as a sort of nightmare for the main character played by Jesse Eisenberg. It's a case where I felt the film was more about style and aesthetics than substance and content. I prefer Villeneuve's Enemy, which is also a film dealing with a doppleganger premise, over this bleak film. There is no doubt that The Double is a creepy film, but one that didn't work for me and one I don't plan on revisiting because like the main character in The Double I felt completely alienated in this dystopian world.

The film introduces us to Simon (Jesse Eisenberg), a timid and shy young man who seems to live his life unperceived by everyone else. Simon always tries to please those around him and is very submissive despite everyone's indifference towards him. He's been working at a government agency for the past 7 years, and despite having some great ideas, no one ever pays attention to him. He is in love with one of his coworkers, Hannah (Mia Wasikowska), who he is too shy to speak to. He always looks for an excuse to visit her at the printing room, but he never finds the courage to ask her out. She is also kind of a lonely and strange girl herself, and Simon often finds himself watching her through a telescope from his apartment. Simon's life turns around when one day his boss, Mr. Papadopoulos (Wallace Shawn), introduces a new coworker named James who is physically identical to him, but with a complete opposite personality. Everyone likes James, and no one even seems to notice he looks exactly like Simon because they don't even conceive of his existence. James is so outgoing he has no trouble getting his boss's attention and seducing women. James befriends Simon but ends up using his ideas to impress Mr. Papadopoulos and seduce Hannah. All of Simon's dreams and hopes are shattered by James who is taking over everything he's passionate about, but was always afraid to take a stand for.

The premise seems interesting, but the way it was presented is what didn't work for me. Ayoade created such a unique dystopian and bleak world that it made me feel dull and alienated. I didn't really care for the characters in this film, despite the wonderful dual performance from Jesse Eisenberg. He once again proves he's a talented actor and carries this film. Mia Wasikowska is also wonderful and plays alongside Eisenberg really well. The performances were strong, I had no problem with them, but what I didn't enjoy were the characters they were playing and the way the film was narrated. The film tries to explore our senses, but all it did for me was make me feel indifferent towards it the same way Simon's coworkers felt towards him. It's a quirky film with a lot of quirky sounds and musical score that just didn't work for me the same way it did for most audiences.

what a great piece of filmmaking

[agraciotti · 10 August 2014]

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.

Sadly I Was An Only Twin

[drewmessidor · 6/10 · 4 April 2014]

As everyone knows, Richard Ayoade's second feature is based on Dostoyevsky's early novella The Double. I enjoyed his first film Submarine, despite there being too much music a la Wes Anderson.

Unfortunately (for me) the influences on this film are so blatant it was difficult to get involved with the story. The atmosphere is, inevitably, Kafkaesque (sorry) although it's quite well done. Gilliam's Brazil is an obvious reference point (mercifully Ayoade isn't as self-indulgent or so keen to show us just how incredibly "imaginative" he is) - others are, I think, Hitchcock's Rear Window, Orson Welles's The Trial, Fight Club, Eraserhead, and Kieslowski's superb A Short Film About Love. I think a director's (or any artist's) influences shouldn't really be so obvious. The film becomes a mash-up of other films which (you could argue) is terribly postmodern (i.e. lazy derivative dross) or the director is still finding his feet (if that doesn't sound too patronising.)

There is an emotional (in the best sense of the word) core in Ayoade's films in that, unlike e.g. Gilliam, he cares about his characters. Jesse Eisenberg is excellent in the dual role and Mia Wasikowska is also very good as the (let's be honest) love interest. A cameo by Chris Morris was unnecessary and sundry chums from Submarine and The IT Crowd also show up - okay, he's the director, he can cast who he likes.

A lot of effort went into the sound design which was generally good and not too intrusive. We all know how much attention David Lynch pays to this in his films (Eraserhead and The Elephant man being the obvious examples.) There are also some touches of humour (e.g. the restaurant scene when James tries to stop Hannah leaving and Simon can't hear what they're saying) which are quite funny although when I saw it it seemed I was the only one who laughed (before you say anything I was in a cinema and not at home watching it alone.)

The ending was a bit disappointing and it felt underwritten (not unlike the curiously related film Berberian Sound Studio.) In the Dostoyevsky story Golyadkin (Simon/James) goes insane at the end and sees multiple versions of himself - I can see why this wasn't done in the film as it would seem like a bit of a cop out (to be fair, Dostoyevsky thought his novella was a failure - it's supposed to be a response to Gogol's The Overcoat - now that story really is brilliant.)

In short, it's a bit too tricksy and derivative for me. The director should be more brutal, kick out the influences that are too obvious and not try to please too many people. I think Ayoade is capable of making a really great film one day but neither Submarine or The Double is it. (Also I think there's too much music. It really isn't necessary and if I want to watch pop videos I'll tune into MTV.)

Maybe I'm being a little harsh but some of the acting seemed like girning. This is probably because I've been watching Robert Bresson's films recently in which a slightly raised eyebrow constitutes outrageous overacting, so at the risk of sounding like Simon, I'm sorry.

Ayoade channels Gilliam for his second feature

[Christof_McShine · 7/10 · 23 February 2014]

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.

A jumble of movies we've seen before

[Giantjott · 6/10 · 31 December 2016]

Before you get all pissy and shout at your computer screen that this movie is based on a Dostoevsky novella from the 1800s, let me be clear: I am not inferring that the story somehow ripped off other contemporary sources. I'm just saying that I felt distracted while viewing The Double by its many similarities to films I've seen and that have seeped into popular culture. Specifically, I kept thinking of Fight Club, The Tenant, Youth In Revolt, Enemy, Rear Window, Brazil, Eraserhead, Dead Ringers, and The Trial. Which leads me to the question: Do we need this movie? Even if it is a mostly faithful adaptation to a hitherto unadapted story by a world famous 19th century novelist, which recalls excellent films from the history of cinema, and which was beautifully, skilfully crafted and acted...do we really need another surreal-noir about the anonymity of corporate jobs? Or another movie with the doppelganger/alter ego paradigm, especially one which does nothing to reinvent or subvert the genre? It should be noted that I enjoyed watching this film for its set design and b/c of Wasikowska's enchanting ways. But not for its story. Which isn't to say I think the source material is weak, but that the elements which had been so intriguing when the novella was first published have now become tropes of this type of film. In short, The Double left me thinking of the films it resembled, already forgetting the doppelganger (could this have been the point?).

Interesting Premise But Falls Short

[Floated2 · 3/10 · 26 December 2014]

The Double tells the story based upon doppelgangers, similar to another film released earlier this year- Enemy. Simon James (Jesse Eisenberg), the film's hero, has been working in the same office for seven years, and no one seems to notice him. Suicide is regular in this universe, and there are special police who do nothing but investigate suicides. Simon dreams of asking out the mousy copy girl (Mia Wasikowska), but has been too timid. Then one day, Simon's office hires a new, much more capable employee. His name is James Simon, and he is identical to Simon James in every way, right down to the boring gray suit. He is also played by Eisenberg. James is more confident, more alluring, and more popular than Simon.

The visuals are what mostly stand out in the film, but the lack of story and attention to further detail the plot is where the film falls short. It also comes off as another attempt at creating something far greater than it's overall turnout. By the end, we are not as entertained or thrilled with the complete finals. As e are lead with a predictable ending.

Lots of good stuff here, weighed down by some flaws

[runamokprods · 8/10 · 31 August 2014]

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.

The Double

[M0n0_bogdan · 7/10 · 15 May 2023]

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.

A Novel Is Worth A Thousand Films

[Nanosecond · 5/10 · 11 May 2014]

It's that time again. The time when Hollywood desperately walks into its nearest library searching for treasure troves to loot. This time the bounty is Fyodor Dostoyevsky's The Double. To be frank, I never read it but something tells me I would have had a better time reading about an introvert suffering a mental breakdown instead of watching one on-screen. Books allow us to open our imagination and create limitless worlds filled with the tiniest details with ease. The Double (2013) is charged with the same task but must overcome a tremendous amount of effort and trickery to achieve the same end.

--Spoilers past this point--

Case in point:

Meet Simon James (Jesse Eisenberg). Simon has a daily routine: he takes the subway to work; he carries a briefcase which holds his identification badge; he checks in with a salty security guard before taking an elevator to his work floor; he sits at his cubicle and efficiently completes his daily tasks (mostly computer work) before heading home and repeating the same routine each proceeding day. He regularly interrupts this routine with daydreams of a young female co-worker, a copyist (irony not missed) named Hannah (Mia Wasikowska), who he wishes to talk to and hopefully start a relationship with but can't quite work up enough nerve even to utter "Hey."

Meet James Simon (Jesse Eisenberg). James does not have a daily routine: we're unsure if he takes a subway to work, he just mysteriously appears; he doesn't carry a briefcase but it's not needed because he's good buddies with the security guard; he never sits at a desk, always a buzzing bee slapping co-workers on the shoulder and causing riotous laughs from groups huddled around him; he never does any work, in fact he doesn't even know what they do at this corporation but that doesn't stop him from taking credit for Simon's work; and, yes, it should come as no surprise that he has a way with the ladies and Hannah is in to him.

It doesn't take a Russian novelist to notice that these two are mirror opposites of each other. In fact, they are not even two people but one person who is trying to reconcile his loneliness, isolation, and desperation for recognition through manifesting a split personality that he, and others, treat as a separate physical entity. Hannah (notice the palindrome) serves as the catalyst driving Simon/James to a very destructive, yet meaningful, end.

The symbolism abounds in this film and leaves audiences with a concussion after clubbing us in the head multiple times with cheap imagery and color cues, repetitive routines (yes, that was on purpose), and stilted dialogue that feels like it could have been lifted (or copied) from the original text. Not to say that any of that is bad in the grand scheme of things but sometimes what's good for the page doesn't necessarily translate well to the screen.

The technical aspects of the film were on point. The picture is drenched in a gorgeous greyish yellow and the soundtrack has a nice change of pace with some old Japanese cuts. Eisenberg plays well off himself and can rival Orphan Black's Tatiana Maslany by successfully portraying characters who look identical yet have extremely colorful and distinctive personality traits. Mia didn't have much of an arc to play with but then again it's not her character's movie.

Having recently seen Enemy (2013) and having been a long time fan of Fight Club (1999), I'm suffering from a fatigue of sorts by watching these schizophrenic protagonists go to war with themselves. It's time for me to take a break and crack open a book. "No, it's not." Yes, it is...wait...who's there?

Just the two of us

[paultreloar75 · 8/10 · 7 April 2014]

This is a seriously weird and disturbing movie that initially looks like it's going to come across as a bit of a 21st Century downmarket version of Brazil. Our hero experiences a sequence of unsettling events, seemingly unconnected and apparently trivial to a degree, although clearly aiming to tee up some of the later action.

The lighting, the sounds, the camera shots are all wonderfully done, setting a disturbing and unsettling atmosphere that gently but with increasing urgency begins to throw a blanket of latent claustrophobia across characters and happenings. We witness curious incidents and are left to guess their significance, our hero reaches out to the girl but is beaten to the jump by....who exactly?

How much of what we see actually takes place is questionable. How much some of the latter scenes make sense even more so. Yet, as it twists and turns towards the denouement, I found myself gripped and engaged to an uncommon degree. It is a difficult movie as it winds up, no question, but I find the notion that anyone feeling suicidal needs warning before viewing as slightly hysterical.

On the one hand, this is an easy film to describe, whether you reference the source material, or your talk about the doppleganger and what it might be like to find one has a double. Yet on the other hand, it's almost impossible to sum this up after one viewing, as there felt like there are so many little bits and pieces that suddenly reveal themselves to your eyes and ears. that you're forced to think about going back to sit back through it again. The question is, which one of you will go...?

Something missing

[PipAndSqueak · 6/10 · 12 April 2014]

It takes a long time to reach the point where the doppelganger makes his appearance and some viewers might already have been lost. Coen brothers like hints of what is to come have nevertheless been provided for you - it's almost necessary that this is the case as you would have no chance of making sense of the story otherwise. So, now that you're half way through, do you feel Simon's frustration? Wouldn't you have done something, something different to worshiping your visual double? So flattered are you by this new incarnation of your self you fail to stand up for yourself. Well, so it may be and that's a lesson for us all. Simon eventually works out how to resolve this tricky problem but not before accepting the truth about flattery.

Like Gilliam's Brazil -- only not good

[TheMarwood · 4/10 · 6 June 2014]

This obnoxiously over directed Dostoevsky adaptation is an empty shell of a film with a vicious sound mix and over stylized art direction. A boring worker drone has a double who up ends his life and sends this pretentious bore into a tail spin of quirky zero dimensional characters and a repetitive joke that our main character is invisible that wouldn't sustain more than a 20 minute short film. Eisenberg does decent work playing the polar opposite dual roles, but he's left running around in a shapeless film that doesn't engage and uses quirk as a crutch instead of having any substance - it's just dead up there on the screen, pleased with itself at how clever its trying to be. The cinematography is quite nice, but that is hardly a compliment, as this film is the very definition of style over substance. It's like the worker drone sequences in Brazil stretched out to feature length, mixed with some elements from Delicatessen, especially the psychotic sound design.

Pretty ambitious

[Red_Identity · 6 May 2014]

Here's the basic gist- this film is pretty ambitious on a visual level. It's reminiscent of the type of film Lynch would have made in his early days (yes, I got memories of Eraserhead for whatever reason). On a storyline-level, it's more straightforward. You can pretty much guess where the narrative is going and the strings it's going to pull. The film still works however, largely because of its cast. Jesse Eisenberg's performance here stands alongside his Oscar-nominated turn in The Social Network as the best acting he's ever given. It's truly superb work. Wasikowska is also quite effective. The score is effective and sort of haunting. Overall, I wish I'd liked it more, but it's definitely recommended.

Not So Bad

[mmilitello · 6/10 · 6 November 2016]

'The Double' begins with an unanswered question, and the story unwinds so at the end you have the answer to the question. The story was linear. It follows Simon James, a quiet, awkward man who one day finds that he has a doppelganger, James Simon.Once he befriends his lookalike, things go downhill in all aspects of his life. Throughout "The Double", it is always nighttime. No scenes are shot during the day. I noticed there were not many sources of light in a lot of the scenes. Singular sources of lights were used often. The room would often be dark and be lit by dim lights. The colors were often warm and dark, there weren't any bright colors used. The lighting used also gave off an eerie feeling. Most of the scenes weren't full of people, and the lighting helped communicate that. The camera work was very straight forward sometimes, while other times it was very interesting. It ranged from very wide shots, to close ups, to interesting angles.

This isn't a movie I would usually watch, but it was so different it drew me in. The awkward humor was funny and disturbing. Eisenberg, who portrays both of the main characters, did a terrific job. If this movie had anyone playing Simon and James, it wouldn't be half as great. After being skeptical while watching, by the end I decided it wasn't bad a film.

Odd but not too bad

[mjb301086 · 6/10 · 9 March 2021]

This wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination and was very weird but there were parts that really made me laugh out loud. I doubt I'd give it a 2nd watch

Very creative dystopian nightmare, but very unfulfilling ending

[korythacher · 6/10 · 11 October 2022]

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.

Not much of anything!

[pappa-95745 · 3/10 · 13 September 2019]

It's an artsy-psychological tale with sparse dialog and lots of confused hints of an actual plot. The unsatisfying surprise-ending seemed like a lame attempt to explain all of the "tangled web". I felt no empathy for the disturbed main character. I was emotionally un-invested and intellectually disappointed.

Duelistic nature of self?

[celluloidkiwi · 9/10 · 5 May 2014]

Great soundtrack. That's an impression. Superb acting given the nature of both subject and a slippery theme. Another impression. Difficult material by writers such as Dostoyevsky are deeply profound, dark reading and, as such, are a challenge to adapt to screen. A reference to Brazil is appropriate at a glance given the setting and camera work. Emulation is not flattery, but observance. Direction, camera values are not nuance, but intentional. That this film was not commercially successful points out it's import. Ironic.

That said, multiple viewings may bring even more appreciation of the story and how it is purveyed. Don't we all have someone inside that wishes to break the mold within which society cast us? Cut the strings, evolve back? Kudos to cast and crew as this theme is hard to evoke on film in a manner that engages both of us. Me and me.

Not for every viewer, but certainly for those that can see inside and out with doubt. Bravo.

Very much like its source, for better or worse

[michaelprescott-00547 · 6/10 · 5 May 2023]

Unless I missed it, the credits don't acknowledge Dostoevsky's novella of the same name as the source of the story. This is odd, since the movie tracks the major plot points of the book pretty closely, almost up to the end. What's interesting is that the objections raised against the novella in 1840 are pretty much the same as the objections raised against the movie today.

1. The movie is overly derivative of Terry Gilliam's Brazil. In 1840, critics complained that The Double was overly derivative of Nikolai Gogol's stories, especially Diary of a Madman.

2. The story lacks variety and goes nowhere. Both book and movie were hit with this criticism. The book was also accused of being too long. (When Dostoyevsky reissued it, he made cuts - though maybe not enough.)

3. The plot makes no sense, because at times the doppelgänger appears to be a private hallucination and at other times he seems to interact with other people. This is true of both versions. If there's any way to make sense of the story, we must assume that the main character is hallucinating much of what happens, including the actions of the people around him (his boss, his coworkers, and in the case of the movie, his would-be girlfriend).

Finally, the consensus of opinion about both book and movie is pretty similar - an interesting but flawed effort that's too off-putting to completely hold the reader's or viewer's interest, but which shows enough talent to point the way to more successful work in the future. That's my opinion, too.

Even so, the movie is worth a look for those who've read the original story.

Really ? Somebody signed off on this ?

[big-32 · 1/10 · 10 April 2014]

Spoiler alert it's not a comedy it's a tragedy, well it's a tragedy that someone has not erased this film from existence

Dull , tedious , mind numbing experience, it's just a awful crock of dung I really cannot believe someone signed off on this , If you have ever had a disturbing repetitive dream , this is just the same ,I sometimes dream that I can't remember where I've parked the car , in my dream I just walk up and down streets trying to find it , if they filmed that it would be more interesting

It's just boring nonsense , the only thing I liked about it was the sets , they made a good job of creating a bleak Eastern European industrial look

I went with a open mind and was hoping that at some point the film would start to,get going but it's like waiting at a bus stop in the cold and rain , just a unpleasant experience

An offbeat but polished minor gem

[reev0 · 8/10 · 15 October 2013]

Ayoade's second film is a confident follow-up to the promising Submarine. Jesse Eisenberg's office worker lacks confidence at work and with women. His double does not have that problem.

Ayoade draws plenty of mannered comedy from the protagonist's embarrassment, and tremendous atmosphere from a meticulously shot and lit film. It reminded me of an early Coen Brothers film, or perhaps Jeunet & Caro. If the ending doesn't quite deliver on its promise, it's no great disappointment either. Eisenberg is excellent as both his trademark weed and his double, and the supporting cast are generally excellent. Recommended. (Seen at the London Film Festival.)

An interesting addition to/reinterpretation of the Dostoyevskian novel

[AlbertCinefilu · 7/10 · 13 March 2023]

I am currently studying Russian Literature at the University of Bucharest and one of this semester's assignments involves reading three of Dostoyevsky's novels: Crime & Punishment, The Double and The Brothers Karamazov. Having finished the second book today, my memories in regard to the source material are still clear & well-defined, so I will try to pinpoint some things I've liked and some things I didn't about Richard Ayoade's 2013 film.

What I didn't like.

• I understand that the movie doesn't aim to be the most accurate adaptation, hence it's modern setting, but the truth is, the movie is just loosely based on the novel. I say that because it only makes use of some plot devices that are to be found in the book, but mostly fails in capturing the inner emotional turmoil, dilemmas, paranoia and mental dizziness of Simon, elements that make Dostoevsky's Golyadkin an interesting case for me. Here the character of Simon is simplified a bit. For example when Simon meets his double, instead of the sheer dread that makes me feel the horror of this unspeakable resemblance, one can see a sudden cut to a Simon that has just faint - an easy gateway for the screenwriters and the director. Or the very first encounter with the double, when James takes the photos of the Colonel and other employees, that seemed a bit too abrupt and in a certain sense - rushed.

• an unnecessary comedic tone, with tasteless jokes for a rather profound story.

• The mild Chinese racism - did the screenwriter try to copy Dostoyevsky's sense of mocking towards the ethnic Germans?

Things I did like

• the color grading, the tones, the hues, the sick greenish of the office; Better that I'd have imagined.

• Jesse Eisenberg's (The Social Network) and Mia Wasikowska's performances.

• ''a person can get really sick by just floating by''

• also the speech about Pinocchio and feeling like you're not real. And the subway scenes especially.

Boring

[claudio_carvalho · 4/10 · 28 October 2015]

"The Double" is a boring film with a story inspired by Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel "The Double" in an environment of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". The invisible Simon James meets his Doppelgänger called James Simon that has opposite personality and steals his job and the woman he suffers from unrequited love. The plot is disclosed at a slow pace and despite the great performances and the stylish cinematography, does not engage the viewer since it is tiresome for a thriller, unfunny for a comedy and shallow for a drama. The conclusion is inconsistent since does not provide explanation why James and Simon are connected when injured but not when healed. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "O Duplo" ("The Double")