This review only contains mild spoilers.
As a low-budget, almost homemade, directorial debut, there is not necessarily a huge expectation for this film but the energy and effort put into "The Enigma" truly make up for what the film lacks and makes this an enjoyable, if flawed, experience.
The film concerns a bizarre experiment gone wrong which leads to an invisible murderer lurking a building where the scientists responsible are trapped. The main flaws in this film can easily be placed at the script level but the actual film-making is incredibly successful. The direction is simply stunning, with a great use of imagery and shaky cam flickering between characters, building up tension greater than the actual dialogue does. The director, Gage Oxley, has done an outstanding job here and the most impressive aspect of the entire 40 minute film is the cinematography; the shots are imaginative and the use of lighting impressive as the film gradually darkens whilst the fear instilled in our characters increases. It is a pity that the simply stunning direction is let down by the storyline but I would recommend this film solely to witness the artistic flashes of brilliance presented on camera.
The most impressive scene is the opening, which truly looks like the start of a million dollar film, and has John Hurt narrating. However, it is a shame that John Hurt is used only to provide exposition – too much exposition – and that this extended monologue actually has little bearing on the overall plot. The next scene, featuring fast moving camera actions is where the film truly starts and in many ways, begins to fall apart.
The film fails as a story, however, because it is too safe, too clichéd and too expositional. The characters are briefly introduced, and then the plot is started (through yet more exposition) but the later scenes lack the impact they should have because the characters are never expanded to make their story relatable or sympathetic to the audience. Almost every character can be described simply as another anonymous scientist with no distinctive character traits to separate them and the two military characters similarly have no motivation. The storyline is rarely interesting or original and the dialogue often seems too false and mostly consists of stale conversations or quotes that lack depth. There are also developments that seem to defy logic and the psychological breakdown of the scientists does little because there is no reason given to care about them as characters. There is also a distinct change in tone as the story appears to be very clinical and scientific but for some reason begins to use supernatural imagery; contrasting strongly with the rest of the film. Despite all of this, however, the script is simple and self-contained and despite the lack of explanation or relatable characters, it is to be admired how well the script works on its own terms because it lets the camera-work tell a story the dialogue couldn't.
The other disappointing areas can perhaps be forgiven due to the low budget and relative inexperience of cast and crew. The acting is most definitely varied, with some scenes being hampered totally by stilted performances and unintentional smirks and facial expressions, but every actor has at least one scene featuring strong acting and the varying skill is not totally damaging because the camera rarely lingers on characters for extended performances. The best performances are those of the four remaining scientists, particularly the actor playing Ripley who shows great promise throughout the entire film and provides an eerie ending to the film. The special effects are infrequent, but mostly work well except for the gun shots which never look quite right. The opening titles and credits are fairly standard but serviceable, and it is worth staying to watch the closing credits for a powerful final scene. If I were to nit-pick this film, I would also criticise the clear inconsistency of setting (scientific building – but looks like a country house?), the anachronisms (1995 – but modern computer tablets?), the plot-holes (characters make big deal of being unable to escape – one character just walks out via front door) and the "based on true events" lie which is too evident, too forced and only ruins the credibility of what is clearly fiction. However, my final major criticism is the music. It is too loud, especially during dialogue and never adds tension or suspense, often being inappropriate to the atmosphere of the scene and is too "pop" sounding to ever fit the tense, borderline claustrophobic, setting.
To clarify, though, these criticisms are only listed here as constructive criticism and I genuinely think this film is well made. Despite the low budget, it is a perfectly serviceable debut as it shows Gage Oxley's skill for direction and that is definitely the most recommended reason to watch this film. It's flawed, it's story is only mediocre and the middle is a bit of a slog but it entirely enjoyable, mildly suspenseful and shows great imagination and a sheer ingenuity in its use of imagery. It's just a pity the artistic direction had not been used on a better story. But there is much to recommend: it is really well paced (I did not even realise it had been 40 minutes until the credits ran!) and when the camera moves fast, the music volume increases and the tension grows, the film can be truly brilliant and those few moments alone make this film worth watching.
In conclusion, this is a good film. It is not great and has too many flaws to prevent it being better but the strong direction, super beginning and creepy end make this one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had in a cinema this year even if it is a little cheesy and it is worth a watch for anyone wanting to see the next exceptional young director.
Recommended, but don't expect brilliance: 3/5
As a low-budget, almost homemade, directorial debut, there is not necessarily a huge expectation for this film but the energy and effort put into "The Enigma" truly make up for what the film lacks and makes this an enjoyable, if flawed, experience.
The film concerns a bizarre experiment gone wrong which leads to an invisible murderer lurking a building where the scientists responsible are trapped. The main flaws in this film can easily be placed at the script level but the actual film-making is incredibly successful. The direction is simply stunning, with a great use of imagery and shaky cam flickering between characters, building up tension greater than the actual dialogue does. The director, Gage Oxley, has done an outstanding job here and the most impressive aspect of the entire 40 minute film is the cinematography; the shots are imaginative and the use of lighting impressive as the film gradually darkens whilst the fear instilled in our characters increases. It is a pity that the simply stunning direction is let down by the storyline but I would recommend this film solely to witness the artistic flashes of brilliance presented on camera.
The most impressive scene is the opening, which truly looks like the start of a million dollar film, and has John Hurt narrating. However, it is a shame that John Hurt is used only to provide exposition – too much exposition – and that this extended monologue actually has little bearing on the overall plot. The next scene, featuring fast moving camera actions is where the film truly starts and in many ways, begins to fall apart.
The film fails as a story, however, because it is too safe, too clichéd and too expositional. The characters are briefly introduced, and then the plot is started (through yet more exposition) but the later scenes lack the impact they should have because the characters are never expanded to make their story relatable or sympathetic to the audience. Almost every character can be described simply as another anonymous scientist with no distinctive character traits to separate them and the two military characters similarly have no motivation. The storyline is rarely interesting or original and the dialogue often seems too false and mostly consists of stale conversations or quotes that lack depth. There are also developments that seem to defy logic and the psychological breakdown of the scientists does little because there is no reason given to care about them as characters. There is also a distinct change in tone as the story appears to be very clinical and scientific but for some reason begins to use supernatural imagery; contrasting strongly with the rest of the film. Despite all of this, however, the script is simple and self-contained and despite the lack of explanation or relatable characters, it is to be admired how well the script works on its own terms because it lets the camera-work tell a story the dialogue couldn't.
The other disappointing areas can perhaps be forgiven due to the low budget and relative inexperience of cast and crew. The acting is most definitely varied, with some scenes being hampered totally by stilted performances and unintentional smirks and facial expressions, but every actor has at least one scene featuring strong acting and the varying skill is not totally damaging because the camera rarely lingers on characters for extended performances. The best performances are those of the four remaining scientists, particularly the actor playing Ripley who shows great promise throughout the entire film and provides an eerie ending to the film. The special effects are infrequent, but mostly work well except for the gun shots which never look quite right. The opening titles and credits are fairly standard but serviceable, and it is worth staying to watch the closing credits for a powerful final scene. If I were to nit-pick this film, I would also criticise the clear inconsistency of setting (scientific building – but looks like a country house?), the anachronisms (1995 – but modern computer tablets?), the plot-holes (characters make big deal of being unable to escape – one character just walks out via front door) and the "based on true events" lie which is too evident, too forced and only ruins the credibility of what is clearly fiction. However, my final major criticism is the music. It is too loud, especially during dialogue and never adds tension or suspense, often being inappropriate to the atmosphere of the scene and is too "pop" sounding to ever fit the tense, borderline claustrophobic, setting.
To clarify, though, these criticisms are only listed here as constructive criticism and I genuinely think this film is well made. Despite the low budget, it is a perfectly serviceable debut as it shows Gage Oxley's skill for direction and that is definitely the most recommended reason to watch this film. It's flawed, it's story is only mediocre and the middle is a bit of a slog but it entirely enjoyable, mildly suspenseful and shows great imagination and a sheer ingenuity in its use of imagery. It's just a pity the artistic direction had not been used on a better story. But there is much to recommend: it is really well paced (I did not even realise it had been 40 minutes until the credits ran!) and when the camera moves fast, the music volume increases and the tension grows, the film can be truly brilliant and those few moments alone make this film worth watching.
In conclusion, this is a good film. It is not great and has too many flaws to prevent it being better but the strong direction, super beginning and creepy end make this one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had in a cinema this year even if it is a little cheesy and it is worth a watch for anyone wanting to see the next exceptional young director.
Recommended, but don't expect brilliance: 3/5
