Skinamarink (2022) User Reviews

I really tried

[sgriff22555 · 5/10 · 23 January 2023]

I went into this movie completely blind (as I try to do with most movies) and can say without question this is NOT a movie you want to go in blind. This movie is extremely experimental and abstract and will not be to most people's taste. The entire film is shot with a grainy vhs type look and is comprised of deliberately off center shots of the interior of a house. There is virtually no plot to speak of and most of the 1 hour 40 minute runtime is composed of random shots.

I love films that challenge and are demanding to the viewer. I love independent cinema and slow burn films. But this film expects WAY too much from the viewer and becomes very irritating as a result. Even to the hardened art house viewer this movie expects too much. This would have made a brilliant 40 minute short as there are moments of true horror but they are surrounded by random repetitive imagery. At no point does this movie pick up pace or have any sort of narrative.

This movie feels like a nightmare ASMR or a full length creepy pasta. If you suffered from night terrors or sleep paralysis or experienced childhood trauma I think you could become extremely invested in this film and that is the only way this works. I didn't feel connected or engaged in the story (I've never been through any of the above) and the only film I can compare with regards to the pacing and somnolent effect this movie had is "Beyond the Black Rainbow".

Five points for originality.

Could've been an amazing 30 min short film

[Heyitsbennett · 5/10 · 18 January 2023]

????? ?????? Don't even know what to say Some loved this movie. Some hated this movie. I fall inbetween. It's less a movie and more of an abstract art piece of different (very dark) shots and clips of things happening (or not happening) around a house where the windows and doors mysteriously vanished leaving 2 young children trapped inside with...something. It's extremely boring, nothing happens on screen, but I do have to say the jump scares got me GOOD. Some parts were very creepy and it had great atmospheric potential and I could see the vision they had, but it felt more like a grad school project with a budget of $10. It's Paranormal Activity's less formed, visually darker, weirder, younger sibling. Art is great - but when a movie relies too much on being abstract, they forget to actually create a film.

There's an excellent short film in here

[danimita · 5/10 · 7 January 2023]

But there's also over an hour of sleep-inducing dead air that does nothing to increase tension or atmosphere, at least for me. I am someone who enjoys a slow burn, but even I have my limits. I watched it at night to get into the horror atmosphere and I struggled not to fall asleep throughout the whole thing.

It's a shame, because if you cut out most of that dead air there are moments of pure horror that genuinely freaked me out. Hopefully someone will do a fan edit and cut out over an hour of weird camera angles and the sound of old cartoons playing in the distance because my god there's only so much I could handle...

I feel like this was my Jacob's Ladder and I'm still stuck watching it

[BandSAboutMovies · 2/10 · 25 January 2023]

The first feature film from director and writer Kyle Edward Ball -- he's also made a proof of concept for this movie named Heck and the video for Craig Moreau's "It Aint Nuthin'" -- Skinamarink finds its origins in Bitesized Nightmares, a YouTube channel started by Ball that visualized nightmares contributed by commenters.

Shot in the Edmonton, Alberta home that Ball grew up in for $15,000, this has all the buzz of a major debut. And that fine, as it has a definite feel for the weirdness that is within the darkness and long hallways and how terrifying it is to be a child. But then it just goes on and on, with arty shots of Lego blocks and upside down rooms and people with no faces played over cartoon soundtracks and hiss and static.

There's no narrative here and the idea that keeps getting pushed -- "Two children wake up in the middle of the night to find their father is missing, and all the windows and doors in their home have vanished." -- would not be easy to find unless you knew it going in.

It's the kind of film that would wow your film school professor at ten minutes but at 100 minutes, this is the kind of movie that has one frightening thing: looking to see how much time is left throughout the film and feeling like more time keeps getting added and you must push yourself like some kind of marathon runner just to endure its endless repetitive layer images and noise-filled audio.

This is a movie filled with jump cuts for people above jump cuts but who can proclaim it as cinema.

This is a movie for people to feel good about themselves for liking it and being ahead of people who "just don't get it" (see We're All Going to the World's Fair).

This is a movie where people will tweet about how it changed them and they can't shake its darkness but it's all just words like fever dream, slow burn and takes chances which are just Film Twitter words that really are sound and fury signifying nothing.

Just imagine: You put a whole bunch of quiet scenes together, then turn on the lights and get loud. Of course everyone screams.

Much like the worst of elevated horror, it all goes back to bad parenting. I mean, those Legos aren't going to clean themselves up. "Somewhere in Dreamland" is a cartoon from the past which is very hit the nail on the head in this. And I really dislike the fake grain and pops added to this, like something out of that fake grindhouse trend a few years ago.

The real terror within this movie is just like how Host won't stop replicating as inferior Zoom horror movies, I'll be sent so many movies next year that just stare at an old toy for an hour while someone plays an xylophone in the background and makes coffee, but shot on an old PXL2000 camera and a Casio soundtrack. Get ready for so many press releases that start with "Influenced by Skinamarink."

I think that Ball has something in him as this movie sets up some interesting things and then never delivers on them. It's just waiting for the next scare, almost like a deconstructed horror film that's above simple scares yet uses them repeatedly. He said about this movie, "Shooting a movie in the house you grew up in about two characters that are more or less you and your sister, I didn't have to try to make it more personal-it just sort of happened. And then an added benefit was my mom had saved a bunch of childhood toys that we used in the movie, so it got even more personal."

I'd like to see that movie, because I have no idea if any of that came into the film, so this feels more made for the artist than the audience. And then the audience wants to feel like an artist and champion it and feel superior. But it's truly a slog, a long death march where I felt like I had to finish it and make it through and when the end credits came up, it really did feel like 572 days long.

I mean, if this was made with a camcorder and a $300 budget in 1984 and released on Tempe Video, I'd probably feel dfferently about it. I'd also defend this if it were directed by Bruno Mattei and stole most of its soundtrack from Phantasm.

I feel like this was my Jacob's Ladder and I'm still stuck watching it.

What do I know?

Whenever I eat haute cuisine, I'm always starving afterward and have to stop at a gas station and get several hot dogs off the roller.

You can learn more on the official site for the movie.

I think this is the most boring movie I've ever seen

[Hajimoto0625 · 1/10 · 21 March 2023]

First, let me preface by saying that I have been an artist my entire life. It's what I did for a living, and I love art and creativity in all forms. But this is not art.

Skinamarink is a really creative creepy concept executed in perhaps the worst way possible. It is long, boring, and not particularly pleasant to look it. It made my eyes tired...straining to see if anything was happening, which of course, nothing was.

If this were made as a 30 minute short it would have been pretty good. But 2 hours of grainy footage of mostly static images was just way too much for me. It actually gave me a headache.

Initially 5/10, 6/10 after I understood the plot

[viltsu-62243 · 6/10 · 27 March 2023]

The kids are trapped in a pocket dimension by a demon who can control time and space. It torments them, mostly emotionally, just for fun. Think the way you play with a pet mouse or hamster, putting your hand in its way so I has to go around you, or picking it up and putting it back where it started when It's trying to get somewhere. Or better yet, playing The Sims. The demon removes doors from where they were, trapping the kids in rooms, removes their toilet, sticks their toys on the ceiling where they can't reach them. Creates copies of their parents to torture them with. Ending shows the demon torments the kids for years at a time and has done it to a countless number of kids over eternity.

fool me once.

[cdcrb · 1/10 · 14 January 2023]

Do you enjoy looking at lego blocks for two hours. Ceilings, baseboards, dimly lit rooms. Then this baby is for you. Because that's all that's here. Supposedly a study in childhood fear, blah, blah ,blah, don't you be fooled by critics. This thing stinks. I was thinking that it must be some kind of joke that the film makers were pulling on me trying to make me into a jerk for watching this piece of junk. In a semi full theatre i was waiting for mass movement to the exit so i could join them. No such luck. We all sat there like morons waiting for something, anything to happen. No such luck. Hey, its your dime. Just listen to me and i'll save you the cost of the ticket. No amount of popcorn will get you thru this.

Can we watch something happy?

[casher43 · 9/10 · 24 November 2022]

What can I say that hasn't already been said in the other reviews?

Plot is thin. Two kids wake to discover their father is gone and there are no windows or doors to the outside. Also, the toilet is missing. And there's... something... in there with them. That's about all you get. The rest is up to the four year old kid in you.

Something about this film invoked a sense of dread in me that I haven't felt in 40 years. It wasn't the thing lurking in the dark that spoke to the children, though. It was the dark itself. It was the unlit corners. It was the absence of the comfort of a parent. It was the strange glow of the TV in a dark room when your unsure of your surroundings. It was that door you left open just a crack.

I'm not sure what to think of this film, honestly. It's not for everyone. It may not have been for me. I'm not sure yet. But I have to hand it to the director for scaring the hell out of me.

If you're like me, you're 15 minutes in and wondering if you should turn it off

[therockks · 6/10 · 10 February 2023]

Like I said in the review title, if you're like me, you're 15-20 minutes into the movie, and you're wondering if 1) you should turn it off, and 2) if anything ever happens. So you're checking IMBD reviews. My answers to those questions are 1) maybe, and 2) kind of. About 45 minutes in, there is a scene that is legitimately scary. Past that, there are a few scenes that are scary as well, but more than scary, the movie is just creepy and disturbing. You can feel reassured that yes, it does ratchet up in intensity.

If you like movies that are "abstract" or "artistic", where there are many interpretations, and simultaneously they're all correct, yet also none of them are correct, then you should finish the movie. If that doesn't sound interesting, and you prefer movies that provide clear answers, then turn it off.

This movie is not overly concerned about plot, though there are hints of plot in it. It is more concerned with style, and creating a specific dream/nightmare-like feeling.

I would say it is quite effective at accomplishing that, though I ultimately found the movie somewhat unsatisfying. The plot summaries about children in a house with disappearing doors and a monster sounds like the book "House of Leaves", which I loved. But there isn't nearly as much plot as in "House of Leaves". You barely see any characters, you barely understand any plot.

I can't say that I liked it, though ultimately I think it was a "good movie".

The reason I ultimately gave this movie a somewhat positive review is because it gave me something to think about. I read some articles and posts about it afterwards. I read two different articles like "Skinamarink Ending Explained", and they both provided very different summaries of the events that happened in the movie, let alone the ending. The movie is very open to interpretation, and I liked that aspect. There were a few scenes and images that are hard to forget. But the movie is also too long and repetitive and boring a lot of the time. I appreciate the movie, and what the creators were trying to accomplish, and I'll be curious to see what the director can do with more than $15,000.

I spent a week watching Skinamarink one night...

[snuhmcsnort · 3/10 · 10 December 2022]

Although the title of this review may appear unkind, it is nevertheless, apt.

I really wanted to like this film but ended up bored and angry. Angry that the filmmaker had been so self-indulgent as to presume the audience would be able to withstand 100 minutes of this punishment.

I admire what he did, the execution is excellent and I was immediately drawn into the atmosphere that the film exudes. However, as other reviewers have noted, this would have made a decent short film, maybe 20 minutes. As it stands, it overplays it's hand dramatically and had me begging to be relinquished from the monotony of the long takes which comprise the film's bloated runtime.

My hope is that Shudder cuts it down significantly before it has an official on-line release. It's too bad. It really does tap into something visceral and primal.

I get why some find it boring,

[benjaminskylerhill · 9/10 · 20 January 2023]

But I did not.

Yes, Kyle Edward Ball's audaciously odd directorial debut is about 25-30 minutes too long, edited in such a way that too many shots overstay their welcome.

Yes, it is filmed in a manner to seemingly intentionally test an audience's patience with still shots that hide the characters' faces and set aside narrative momentum in favor of metaphorical experimentation.

This will bother, and clearly has bothered, a lot of people. And I get it. It's not what they wanted. No hard feelings to these people. But now I want to talk about why I loved this film.

I was absolutely gripped by Skinamarink. I found so much depth and meaning to come from its bare-bones visual and aural presentation.

It's so, so ambiguous. But that didn't bother me because rather than showing bizarre imagery for the sake of it like so many experimental films, Ball instead keeps a GREAT deal of unknown in each frame.

The creaky, eerie sound complimented the ever-shifting static of the cinematography to make my brain play all kinds of tricks on me. A handful of horrifying disturbing images make an appearance throughout the film, but the constant wondering of "what was that sound" or "did I see something move in the frame" made me just as on edge throughout.

Though short on plot, I still found surprising thematic/character depth in each of the movie's unsettling, eerie frames of a single house.

We don't get to know much about Kevin and Kaylee, but we know what kind of relationship they have as young siblings from the film's opening scenes, and it is so soul-crushing to see what happens and doesn't happen to them over the story's nightmarish happenings.

As these kids are stalked in their house by something unknown and unseen, the horrifying things we see and hear are so clearly indicative of common childhood fears, traumas, and challenges: divorce, nightmares, abandonment, neglect, death, and a lack of control over your own choices.

Seeing them play out on screen in such an uncanny way was so sad and so terrifying. The film's lack of a musical score, lack of concrete answers, piercing sound design, and ability to turn the intimacies of childhood into faceless, unknowable antagonists all made this one of the scariest movies I have ever seen.

I wanted to like it, I really did.

[NightlySun · 6/10 · 21 December 2022]

I'm pretty sure I understand what the director is trying to do, and believe it or not, I respect him for it. A lot of the time, I was, indeed, thinking of my childhood nightmares and irrational fears, like many others have said they did. But it didn't scare me. Despite all the hype on Reddit and going in without expectations, it just didn't do much of anything for me.

I think it's partly because I KNOW those fears are irrational and I just can't put myself in the mindset of my inner child anymore, not to mention I'm well-attuned to the dark side of things, so it doesn't feel as threatening now. Another reason is because the "scary" moments in the movie are relegated to a few small jumpscares, and some moments where you THINK something bad is about to happen, but without the payoff. Lastly, I don't think the ultra-minimalistic approach is for me. While the unknown can definitely be scary when done right, I require identifiable traits to characters beyond just voices and footsteps to feel anything for them.

There's definitely parts that made me slightly unnerved, such as the disembodied voice - an entity or possibly the darkness itself - instructing one of the children to put a knife in their eye, with the sound of a child crying shortly afterwards. Unfortunately, the movie's too long for its own good. I watched it pretty late at night when I was tired and winding down, so that might have had something to do with me being less than impressed.

Like I said, I respect the director's effort. He's clearly trying to make minimalism scary, and assuming that he's not astroturfing it (I will say I'm a little suspicious that the movie started out with something over 4 stars only to get a 5.5 in like a week after I last checked), he seems to have succeeded with at least a few, and I genuinely admire that. I just don't think his style is for me. I checked out some of his short films, including Heck, which is sort of a prototype for Skinamarink, but didn't feel any actual dread. I still feel bad about checking it out early instead of waiting for a mass release in the US, so I'm willing to give it another try so that Kyle at least gets his money's worth from me watching it.

Waste of time.

[jacobmeudt · 1/10 · 24 January 2023]

If I would have turned this in as my final assignment back in film school I would be an accountant now.

I saw a trailer for this film and it looked freaky. I liked the grainy film look and the audio was a bit haunting. Of course the trailer states that this will be the scariest movie I have ever seen... I was not expecting this to be the case but thought it may be entertaining. I was wrong.... soooooo wrong.

Two minutes into this "film" I was bored already, but hoping that this is going somewhere. Ten minutes in I was really bored, but was hoping this would go somewhere. Thirty minutes in I was disappointed with myself that I spent the past 30 minutes watching this horrible waste of time.

There are many, many other films that are way better than this mess and much more worthy of your time.

I was fortunate that I saw this "film" at no cost, the only thing wasted was my time.

A chilling finale did not make up for the boring events leading up to it

[nicolasroop · 4/10 · 18 January 2023]

All the people saying this film is plotless are wrong. There is a plot here, although it is extemely vague and thin. Might be one of the thinnest plotlines I've ever seen and that is what caused the film to be at times unbearably boring for me. I actually enjoyed the aesthetic for the film, the faceless characters, the low light, lofi camera work. It's a style that could present a high creep factor with the proper story to go along with it. This is not that story.

I will say this is much better than the director's previous effort 'Heck', which is basically the short film that started this one. It feels like the director has a better grip on the style he's presenting here. That still doesn't make up for the lack of story here.

The film opens with one of the children falling down the stairs and this starts the chain of events that make me believe the child actually died when this happened and he is living in some purgatory or hell. What follows after this could only be described as mean spirited and harsh, but it unfolds so slowly that you feel like you're just watching paint dry. There are some suitably creepy moments but they are few and far between. Actually there is maybe about 3 or 4 creepy scenes in the entire film, the ending being far and wide the most uncomfortable. Had me looking over my shoulder as I was leaving the theater.(I had the whole theater to myself, I'm assuming due to bad weather, but it was probably the best way to watch this film as isolation is a major theme.) The ending felt like I was being personally talked to by the faceless, out of focus boy and I hated it, but in a good way.

All in all, I still couldn't call this a good movie and it will only appeal to a very niche horror crowd. I commend the director for creating something so different. I just wish there was as much thought put into the story as there was in the shooting style.

2 portals out of 5.

I have horror movie blue balls

[RoxyMoron101 · 1/10 · 22 January 2023]

I saw this film at the recommendation of a friends husband who said he couldn't sleep because he found the film so disturbing. Luckily a theatre near me was playing it so I got my brother to join, and we're mad.

First of all the grainy film texture made me motion sick, second of all none of the scares paid off. It was like good set up and just nothing.

It was also too dark, you couldn't see anything.

Too quiet and too loud. All the dialogue is whispered and only sometimes captioned so I couldn't make out what characters where saying half the time.

And omg was it too long. I think we thought it ended at least 8 times and just groaned when the movie kept going.

The Rebirth of Primal Childhood Fears - A Reward for the Patient

[TwistedContent · 7/10 · 14 January 2023]

"Skinamarink" is undoubtedly one of the most unique viewing experiences in my existing memory, and it's rather challenging for me to truly pinpoint my own reaction and opinion of it. Depending on your taste, it can be equal parts a liminal horror masterpiece and a true tedium. I know one thing to be true, it requires absolute attention and maximum immersion to get out of it all that director Kyle Edward Ball intended to do to you.

Two little children, 5 year old Kaylee and her 4 years old brother Kevin, wake up in the middle of the night to find their father is missing, and all the windows and doors in their home have vanished. Definitely sounds like a concept to bring a lot of creeps. And so it does. "Skinamarink" starts out with the slowest pacing I've ever experienced, and during the first 20-30 minutes one might feel the temptation to give up on this film. The entire cinematography, the sum of the 100 minute runtime consists almost exclusively of obscure shots of just about everything in the (director's childhood) house, except people. You practically don't see character's faces at all, only legs. Ceiling. Walls. Furniture. Darkness, a lot of darkness, holding within itself the dreadful sense than anything can come into your eyes and mind at any given time. The screen is full of grain and 70's-like screen scratches, the depthless dark keeps morphing, and the sense of dread is creeping-crawling around every corner of every frame. You know that weird, scary pile of clothes in your room in the middle of the night? This is that: the movie. It's an absolute trump move to put such youngins as main characters, the rebirth of your most primal childhood fears is what Kyle Edward Ball wants to offer you. Most people seek the kind of comfort an ignorant bliss they had as young children, but director of "Skinamarink" serves just the opposite of that spectrum.

It's a liminal, esoteric, ambient, analogue, lo-fi horror if I've ever seen one. And made with palpable, impressive confidence. Slowly, very slowly, but surely, "Skinamarink" lulls one into the deep sense of unease, hiding short, momentary glimpses of absolute terror inbetween long periods of almost sheer ambient nothingness. It's a movie that rewards the patient. Ball gives us a playground in which our imagination will do more work than the movie itself, and that's not a negative critique, but quite the feat.

"Skinamarink" creates a tiny yet massive world, from which there is no escape. Days after seeing it, I'm still trying to grasp what I saw, and on what scale I enjoyed it. This film has gotten the kind of buzz no art can buy, and rightly so, I believe it will be remembered as cult film, perhaps even as a revolutionary kind of horror. My rating: 7/10.

This would of been better as a 15 min short

[mbbpkgf · 3/10 · 22 January 2023]

At first I was enjoying this movie. I expected it to be scary. It wasn't really and eventually it got boring. Just when I had my fill there was still like way to much of the movie left. It has no business being this long. Most of the scenes in this film are highly irrelevant. They're just filler for atmosphere. Although the atmosphere presented was intense it over stayed its welcome. I don't regret watching this movie but I would not recommend it and will never watch it again. It did however make me feel like the concept might be nice to see if better executed in a shorter movie. If you chose to watch this movie. Just know the entire movie is just how the beginning is. You never really see any actors at all. Just empty rooms with voices. Specifically the children in question. It does not flesh out into anything bigger at all. If you do not feel the movie 30 minutes in, don't expect it to change. It will not.

An experience best had alone in the dark

[aerialace56 · 9/10 · 20 November 2022]

I always had terrible nightmares as a kid which included sleep paralysis. Eventually in my teens I stopped having nightmares and sleep paralysis completely. I would have the occasional bad dream, but not a nightmare that would wake me up with an elevated heartrate. But after watching Skinamarink, I've had my my first real nightmare in over 14 years that I woke up from with a heart racing.

"Skinamarink" is more of an experience as opposed to a traditional plot driven movie. An experience that took me back to my childhood where I had a fear of the dark. Unbeknownst to my younger self, that fear was actually a fear of the unknown which "Skinamarink" 100% taps into.

This film follows the story of 2 kids being alone in their home in the dark. Pretty simple in concept, but masterful in execution.

Unnatural camera angles, abrupt noises, and minimal actual human connection in this film leave the viewer feeling as helpless as the children in the film.

When looking at this film in a literal sense, it's hard to pinpoint what exactly is happening and the ending doesn't necessarily give a cohesive answer. Are the paranormal events you are seeing actually happening to these characters? Is this a shared psychosis episode, or even their imaginations? Is this just a crazy nightmare a kid is having that we are getting a glimpse at? Who knows.

The entire film has a static-like grain over it which some viewers might find off-putting, but to me it brought back memories of being a kid looking into the darkness and seeing that same static-like grain in my vision.

If you don't like slow experiences, this movie really isn't for you. This is definitely an "artsy" film and not something general audiences would like. However, for people looking for a truly mental experience, watch this film.

House Of Leaves.

[ocosis · 6/10 · 9 February 2023]

I just watched it, and I dug it. In many respects it reminded of the book House Of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. A book that has a similar theme of a house that has rooms that constantly change, people disappear etc. And as someone that has grown up watching experimental films, as well as listening to and making experimental music, I thought the pace of the film was just right.

The power of suggestion is always a good thing, and the fact that there was little footage of actual people present here works well. It added to the sense of isolation in the house. The whispering too was a nice touch. The children sensed there was something there.

I also found the atmosphere throughout kind of relaxing. Maybe I'm just used now, to dark things.

It's Not Artsy, You Can Say It: It Sucked

[actaction · 1/10 · 20 January 2023]

In the words of Abe Simpson: "I've coughed up scarier stuff than that". Skinamarink is a bland, pretentious, a film experimental only on the patience of the people who are watching it. It's all mood, no substance. It's proof you can make a film without a tripod or a light or an actual idea. I nearly fell asleep. I tried to leave early after 35 minutes of nothing happening, but ended up finishing it because the waiter didn't bring me my check until it was almost over anyhow. No, it's not just "not for me"... it's an awfully done film who can only find an audience in people who like liking things that are anti-mainstream. It tries so little to be anything how can you love or hate it? I don't hate it... you didn't love it. I just nothing'd it. The audience I saw it with had 3 people walk out, other people saying "I guess the face at the end was scary". No, people, you aren't wrong... it was utter garbage with a good trailer. It was a feature film with 10 minutes of content. It sucked, that's not a controversial opinion.

Scariest F'ng thing I've ever watched.

[iridon-18631 · 9/10 · 1 November 2022]

I'll start this with I'm not usually a horror fan, the medium is usually saturated with cheap jump scares and action movies dressed up with a scary antagonist.

Skinamarink is the most primal fear I've ever experienced on screen. It's odd angles and poor resolution create a dream-like sensation while avoiding faces and full characters in frame deprive you of comfort or connection. It's slow pace brings a feeling of imprisonment to what is playing out in the house.

This film feeds off the unknown, taking you back to a time where you couldn't explain the noises in the ceiling or what might be lurking in the dark corners of a room. It's a masterpiece of visual story telling, each hovering shot or anomalous event is carefully placed to explain what very little the movie offers for a story. The rules this entity has established. It digs into the oldest programming of your mind, the code that allowed you to learn as a child, and uses it to write a new language it speaks with.

I dare not sat too much, but the negative reviews here seem to be influenced by being surrounded in a theater. This move preys on the feelings of isolation, I watched it on a leaked source and it hit hard, real hard. Just discussing it again with my friends and writing this review chills my spine, reliving the small details that make it the terror it is.

Skinamarink boring put me to sleep

[kmkevinn-64733 · 30 June 2023]

I am really upset this format does not offer the ZERO star review for this incredible trash. Nothing happens. Nothing!!! Eighty percent of the film is a dark room, empty hallway shots with a cheap, grainy not grindhouse filter distorting the screen and showing NOTHING. Fifteen percent is a annoying child voice whispering so quietly they actually have to put subtitles on the screen for the audience to even vaguely understand what is happening. Then five percent is mostly ineffective cheap jump scares. It's so stupid that it should of never made a 100 minute movie it should leave his short film "heck" one short film is good enough.

Really gets under the skin

[CrimeFighterFrog · 6/10 · 27 March 2024]

This movie definitely isn't for everyone. It's very avant-garde in its minimalist approach to its presentation. When it comes down to it, there's nothing really happening; it's all implied, which makes it hard to approach.

The first 15 minutes or so, I found it kinda boring but as soon as things started happening, I was crapping my pants and chewing my nails. This is one of the most horrifying films I have ever seen. It's very out there and has a kind of lynchian feel to it--it reminded me a lot of the scariest moments in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me and Inland Empire.

What drags it down, though, is the pacing. Some shots linger for a bit too long, a few scenes towards the end could be cut out entirely--shave 10, maybe 20 minutes off the runtime and this would be absolutely amazing.

Ultimately, the film achieves what it sets out to do incredibly well and delivers a one-of-a-kind experience, but the few missteps it takes hold it back from greatness.

Nice ideas, but demands a lot from the audience

[alex_with_a_P · 5/10 · 22 April 2023]

Well, there are three types of viewers that come out of a viewing of Skinamarink. First we have the people who praises it as the next best thing since sliced bread. Then we have the people who absolutely detest this movie. And lastly there are the people who respect the effort and the new approach but felt that there is a lot lacking. I'm leaning towards the latter. Yeah the movie has an interesting presentation and some neat sound engineering. But like others said before the 100 minutes runtime is stretching the goodwill, even for people who are familiar with arthouse movies.

The movie has a lot of gaps in it's narration and it's up to the viewers imagination or personal experience to fill those gaps and ultimately enjoy the movie. For some people it hits very close to home and they have no problem doing so. Others are bored to tears. So I have to admit, it is a unique movie in it's own right and I highly respect that, although I personally didn't enjoy it as much as I wanted.

It shares certain similarities to a videogame called Gone Home. It also plays in an empty house with missing parents and you have to figure out the story by pure observation and patience. But it had a decent story and an interesting ending. For people who are disappointed by this movie for the lack of a coherent story but like the ambience, I can recommend at least this game.

Empty

[PedroPires90 · 3/10 · 8 December 2022]

I finally understood what many felt when they saw Caveat. The difference is that Caveat has plot devices, a story, a main character that demonstrates what he feels and relatable, it has disturbing images and sounds and it goes somewhere. It's also very efficient creating suspense and tension. I can't say the same about Skinamarink, which is mostly boring.

Here we have a set of disconnected images that never manage to justify the existence of a long feature film, let alone its duration of almost 100 minutes. The last 5 minutes are fine. Unfortunately, by the time we get there, our minds have travelled and travelled, as it is impossible to hold on to empty space and empty content.