It had a good premise (start) but the constant high pitched ringing that came on and off through out the movie was unbearable. I watched it with the mute setting on just to get through it.
174 Reviews
Interesting implications
thenotteam26 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Looking through all the very negative and shallow reviews just complaining about the score I feel I need to add something to the discussion. People seem to be missing what the film has to say and I think it has very interesting ideas about our ways of thinking. Throughout the film it's very unclear if the plants are actually infecting people or if it's more of a psychological conspiracy in the characters head. You really get a sense that something's wrong (the music really emphasizes this greatly) but at the same time you ask the question: what exactly is wrong? In the end the plant seems to "win" and change people, which earlier in the film felt wrong but in the end simply seems like a paradigm shift in thinking. People are acting differently but no one's harmed or anything (except the one scientist who didn't accept the new paradigm).
I think the film implies some kind of moral/psychological relativism. Why do we feel our morals are so absolute when they're really quite arbitrary? Inhaling the pollen acts like a metaphor for any way of thinking, religious or what we call "secular" beliefs. Contrary to other reviewers I think this film was a really interesting watch, but don't forget to contemplate it's message.
You Are The Weakest Link
stwmby24 February 2022
Anne Robinson meets the Little Shop of Horrors in a painfully slow, poorly disguised version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Predictable, dull, illogical, unimaginative, and with a plot containing more holes than a monks collander
Thanks but no thanks.
Predictable, dull, illogical, unimaginative, and with a plot containing more holes than a monks collander
Thanks but no thanks.
Couldn't say I enjoyed it
Gordon-1114 December 2019
The story has an interesting premise, and can be quite suspenseful. However, the pace is super slow, which kills the suspense and momentum. The music and the repeating CCTV shot at the plants get tiresome as well. Overall, I couldn't say I enjoyed it.
Constant Noise
ImdbAllowsLeftwingExtemistBots14 December 2019
What can possibly go wrong?
kosmasp12 February 2020
You have to suspend your disbelief to a degree that is almost inhuman. But if you do that, there is quite a lot of entertainment to be found here. The decisions (most of them) of the characters in this movie is really cringe-worthy, to the point where you might not have any feelings for them anymore.
Having said that, it does look good and I do like the actors involved in general. There is not much to spoil once the movie starts, because you should be able to guess everything coming at you from miles away (or kilometres if that's more your liking) ...
Having said that, it does look good and I do like the actors involved in general. There is not much to spoil once the movie starts, because you should be able to guess everything coming at you from miles away (or kilometres if that's more your liking) ...
Interesting, but it falls short.
pickleinabag9 December 2019
Im sure that you have read that this is a more modern retelling of invasion of the body snatchers. Don't think of it that way though. If you compare the 2 then my rating for this would go down. This feels more like a pretentious indie movie rather than a horror. The whole thing being about a flower was interesting, but the characters are boring and uninteresting. Which is disappointing considering that is what is supposed to hold this movie together. There isn't really a satisfying climactic scene that the movie builds up to and there is a ton of build up. The music in the movie was really odd to say the least and sometimes annoying. What can I say, I feel as if I wasted a lot of time on this movie.
Slow but compelling
safsurfer7 December 2019
This was an overall somewhat creepy film. Even when the characters were themselves they were still creepy. I rated a 7, fair. The directing and chop suey like sound score really hit hard and gave the film it's teeth. The timing of the score with the camera work was very tight and deliberate, and kept the creepiness factor going throughout. Casting and acting were correctly matched, special effects worked well although a little more action from the antagonists might have highlighted the 'body snatcher' mechanism a little better but then again the writer and director obviously wanted it vague to keep the suspence and audience guessing till the end. Which still has me wondering even a day later. This slow moving film won't disappoint but it also won't wow you. It will however keep you engaged, stimulated, and guessing throughout. Is little joe happy with my review lol?
I HAVE AN ANEURYSM NOW
wzwfqwrm1 April 2021
"Flavorless Europudding"?
phoebeyung4 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
In attempts to be a female Frankenstein story, "Little Joe", directed by Jessica Hausner, tells the story of a female scientist, Alice, who creates a plant that can make people happy. Described by The Hollywood Reporter as "flavorless Europudding", the film was under- whelmingly artistic. The plot lacked structure and scenes did not flow as well as they had the potential to.
The storyline was fairly weak to begin with. The audience is initially introduced to Alice, who is abso- lutely work obsessed. She genetically modifies a plant that can change peoples' emotions and overall make them happy just by breathing in a scent. This project of Alice's surely goes wrong, as people are starting to become brainwashed. However, the brainwashing wasn't all that interesting. The plant, called Little Joe after Alice's son, Joe, was brainwashing people through its pollen in order for people to want to protect it, because the plant could not reproduce. The whole idea of this is just so hard to process, especially within the moment in a theater. It took me awhile to figure things out. The story is bland and straight out confusing for the first hour.
Overall, the point of the plant taking away peoples' emotions wasn't emphasized enough. The acting was nothing special - the actors didn't convince me that the plant was harming them. The performances were so neutral and underwhelming. I couldn't feel emotions from any of the characters, even if there were intense parts within the film. In one scene, we see a character absolutely torn apart due to a build up of depression and other mental illnesses. Because of her job, the woman cannot stand her life anymore and throws herself off a high ledge in her work building. It was emotionless and bland during a time where the performances needed to be intense and dramatic. Hausner could not deliver to her own script's needs.
"Little Joe" was also just a failed thriller film. There was barely any suspense, even though I believe there was meant to be a lot. The pacing within the first hour was slow, trying to focus on family issues. It just took awhile for me to piece things together, which should never be the case (unless done extremely well, like in "Memento").
Though I thoroughly disliked the creative direction that was taken in the film, I would still rate it around a 6/10 solely because there were multiple strong technical aspects that I think a lot of the film critics' reviews overlooked. There was an article written on "Little Joe" that only focused on the negative aspects of it. It gave absolutely no credit to sound design. The sound was probably the best part of the film. The score matched up extremely well with the visuals and the sound effects worked perfectly with it too. The visual images that I was seeing went hand- in-hand with the auditory sounds that I was hearing. It made me feel content within the showing. Speaking of visuals, I appreciated how "Little Joe" used a really difficult color palette, yet somehow managed to keep it strong and consistent. The choice of reds and greens was a bold move, and I didn't think that it could be pulled off. It was - props to Hausner for that. The production designer was impressive and was not afraid to go for the consistent color palette. The image shown above was one of the main looks of the film, and it was color corrected absolutely perfectly. To end, I appreciated how the color palette was introduced to viewers, right from the opening shot.
The storyline was fairly weak to begin with. The audience is initially introduced to Alice, who is abso- lutely work obsessed. She genetically modifies a plant that can change peoples' emotions and overall make them happy just by breathing in a scent. This project of Alice's surely goes wrong, as people are starting to become brainwashed. However, the brainwashing wasn't all that interesting. The plant, called Little Joe after Alice's son, Joe, was brainwashing people through its pollen in order for people to want to protect it, because the plant could not reproduce. The whole idea of this is just so hard to process, especially within the moment in a theater. It took me awhile to figure things out. The story is bland and straight out confusing for the first hour.
Overall, the point of the plant taking away peoples' emotions wasn't emphasized enough. The acting was nothing special - the actors didn't convince me that the plant was harming them. The performances were so neutral and underwhelming. I couldn't feel emotions from any of the characters, even if there were intense parts within the film. In one scene, we see a character absolutely torn apart due to a build up of depression and other mental illnesses. Because of her job, the woman cannot stand her life anymore and throws herself off a high ledge in her work building. It was emotionless and bland during a time where the performances needed to be intense and dramatic. Hausner could not deliver to her own script's needs.
"Little Joe" was also just a failed thriller film. There was barely any suspense, even though I believe there was meant to be a lot. The pacing within the first hour was slow, trying to focus on family issues. It just took awhile for me to piece things together, which should never be the case (unless done extremely well, like in "Memento").
Though I thoroughly disliked the creative direction that was taken in the film, I would still rate it around a 6/10 solely because there were multiple strong technical aspects that I think a lot of the film critics' reviews overlooked. There was an article written on "Little Joe" that only focused on the negative aspects of it. It gave absolutely no credit to sound design. The sound was probably the best part of the film. The score matched up extremely well with the visuals and the sound effects worked perfectly with it too. The visual images that I was seeing went hand- in-hand with the auditory sounds that I was hearing. It made me feel content within the showing. Speaking of visuals, I appreciated how "Little Joe" used a really difficult color palette, yet somehow managed to keep it strong and consistent. The choice of reds and greens was a bold move, and I didn't think that it could be pulled off. It was - props to Hausner for that. The production designer was impressive and was not afraid to go for the consistent color palette. The image shown above was one of the main looks of the film, and it was color corrected absolutely perfectly. To end, I appreciated how the color palette was introduced to viewers, right from the opening shot.
Little Joe
henry8-315 February 2021
Scientists have created a flower that can make people happy. It is clear though that inhaling the pollen has a stronger effect than just that.
Whilst this is an attractive looking film with an interesting idea and a terrifically weird and wonderful score, the storytelling is linear and pretty staid without the twists and turns that could have made everything more interesting. In addition, the acting, whilst in part intended, is also a little too robotic by all involved to make you really care about the direction of travel.
Whilst this is an attractive looking film with an interesting idea and a terrifically weird and wonderful score, the storytelling is linear and pretty staid without the twists and turns that could have made everything more interesting. In addition, the acting, whilst in part intended, is also a little too robotic by all involved to make you really care about the direction of travel.
This (other) side of paradise
I_Ailurophile24 June 2021
'Little Joe' plays in a botanical space that calls to mind a very select number of familiar sci-fi stories. That floral forwardness is taken in a slightly different direction here, and low-key as it is, it's unexpectedly spellbinding.
It takes quite awhile to go anywhere. The narrative flow feels altogether restrained until about halfway through, to the point where one could be forgiven for thinking the film bereft. The superb music of Teiji Ito in the soundtrack, minimalist and discordant, is the most immediately grabbing aspect for much of the picture. That said, it works wonders all by itself to raise tension and build the slowly mounting atmosphere.
As the plot gradually begins to advance, the effects cast by the flower bring to mind other renowned concepts, reminding of a few thrillers or horror films. Yet even events that should elicit the greatest reaction - and do, in comparable tales - are depicted here in such a way as to maintain the very flat, steady tone that's established from the beginning. And that's entirely deliberate, of course, matching the progression of blooming "Little Joe's" themselves.
I wasn't entirely sure what to expect when I began watching, but ultimately I love 'Little Joe.' For the measure of comparison one can draw to other movies, in my mind there's enough here to set it apart, and to stand on its own merits. Along with the great set and production design, writer-director Jessica Hausner demonstrates a sense of aesthetics that lends itself handily to the memorability of the film. Interior shots generally depict settings awash in sharp colors: deep green in protagonist Alice's home; gentle red in her therapist's office; a warm reddish-purple in the controlled lab space where Little Joe grows; a stark white throughout the lab complex otherwise, complemented by instances of lush green. That variance in hue offers some of the most vibrant dynamics in a feature marked by interminable evenness in its approach.
Moreover, I'm very pleased with Hausner and co-writer Géraldine Bajard's screenplay that broaches botany, and Life in its most expansive meaning, from an angle not commonly or effectively explored in cinema. It's endlessly fascinating how plants in real life are able to communicate by the most rudimentary chemical means. Add to this the capability of various organisms - fungi, wasps, bacteria, and more - to manipulate prey, or hosts, and alter their behavior. Consider Toxoplasma gondii, the bacterium that can affect rodents' behavior around cats, and which studies suggest can almost imperceptibly change the behavior of infected humans. Lastly, to cheekily echo Dr. Ian Malcolm: "Life finds a way." The artificial lab setting and supposed genetic engineering of Little Joe precludes natural selection, yet it's easy to activate our suspension of disbelief to stride in step with the film's premise that Little Joe has collectively adapted to exceed the bounds of their narratively-defined constrictions - not unlike the evolution of an organism, over many generations, into new forms.
'Little Joe' mixes all these notions into an exceptional blossom, creating something familiar yet wholly new. It dips its toes into horror, and sci-fi, with the big ideas in the narrative - but does so with such an overwhelming, subdued caution and subtlety that these genres don't feel like they're meaningfully stitched into its craft. 'Little Joe' doesn't want to actively thrill, or frighten. It wants to creep under your skin, as slyly as it can. And it does.
I find no specific fault with this movie. I glance at other reviews and find myself mystified, wondering if other viewers were actually watching the same film, or engaging with it honestly. I understand that the soundtrack may be unwelcomingly jarring for an audience with sensitive ears, but just because a composition is unconventional certainly doesn't mean it's bad. To me, the selections from Teiji Ito's 'Watermill' are not just among the most noteworthy aspects of 'Little Joe,' but among the most outstanding - shrewdly digging claws into our senses to lend dark gravity to a picture that very purposefully suppresses it in the screenplay. His work has caught my imagination in a way that music has broadly failed to do recently, and now that I'm aware, I right away want find a copy of the 2008 CD release for my collection.
The acting, course of events, and even the climax are all consciously muted. The story plays with recognizable ideas we've seen before, and warps them into something distinguishably unique. The visuals presented through Hausner's camerawork, and the atypical soundtrack, are by design jolting, a harsh clash relative to the rest of the presentation. For all these reasons, 'Little Joe' won't appeal to every viewer, least of all anyone who is looking for a feature that's instantly, pointedly electrifying.
Yet for those who enjoy understated films, pictures that develop narrative with the most unhurried of paces - the kind to rather furtively slip into our mind - this is an intriguing and somewhat refreshing take on concepts that are frequently portrayed with titillation, if not outright bombast. I had mixed or uncertain expectations before watching 'Little Joe,' and ended my watch very pleased with the experience. High recommendation from me!
It takes quite awhile to go anywhere. The narrative flow feels altogether restrained until about halfway through, to the point where one could be forgiven for thinking the film bereft. The superb music of Teiji Ito in the soundtrack, minimalist and discordant, is the most immediately grabbing aspect for much of the picture. That said, it works wonders all by itself to raise tension and build the slowly mounting atmosphere.
As the plot gradually begins to advance, the effects cast by the flower bring to mind other renowned concepts, reminding of a few thrillers or horror films. Yet even events that should elicit the greatest reaction - and do, in comparable tales - are depicted here in such a way as to maintain the very flat, steady tone that's established from the beginning. And that's entirely deliberate, of course, matching the progression of blooming "Little Joe's" themselves.
I wasn't entirely sure what to expect when I began watching, but ultimately I love 'Little Joe.' For the measure of comparison one can draw to other movies, in my mind there's enough here to set it apart, and to stand on its own merits. Along with the great set and production design, writer-director Jessica Hausner demonstrates a sense of aesthetics that lends itself handily to the memorability of the film. Interior shots generally depict settings awash in sharp colors: deep green in protagonist Alice's home; gentle red in her therapist's office; a warm reddish-purple in the controlled lab space where Little Joe grows; a stark white throughout the lab complex otherwise, complemented by instances of lush green. That variance in hue offers some of the most vibrant dynamics in a feature marked by interminable evenness in its approach.
Moreover, I'm very pleased with Hausner and co-writer Géraldine Bajard's screenplay that broaches botany, and Life in its most expansive meaning, from an angle not commonly or effectively explored in cinema. It's endlessly fascinating how plants in real life are able to communicate by the most rudimentary chemical means. Add to this the capability of various organisms - fungi, wasps, bacteria, and more - to manipulate prey, or hosts, and alter their behavior. Consider Toxoplasma gondii, the bacterium that can affect rodents' behavior around cats, and which studies suggest can almost imperceptibly change the behavior of infected humans. Lastly, to cheekily echo Dr. Ian Malcolm: "Life finds a way." The artificial lab setting and supposed genetic engineering of Little Joe precludes natural selection, yet it's easy to activate our suspension of disbelief to stride in step with the film's premise that Little Joe has collectively adapted to exceed the bounds of their narratively-defined constrictions - not unlike the evolution of an organism, over many generations, into new forms.
'Little Joe' mixes all these notions into an exceptional blossom, creating something familiar yet wholly new. It dips its toes into horror, and sci-fi, with the big ideas in the narrative - but does so with such an overwhelming, subdued caution and subtlety that these genres don't feel like they're meaningfully stitched into its craft. 'Little Joe' doesn't want to actively thrill, or frighten. It wants to creep under your skin, as slyly as it can. And it does.
I find no specific fault with this movie. I glance at other reviews and find myself mystified, wondering if other viewers were actually watching the same film, or engaging with it honestly. I understand that the soundtrack may be unwelcomingly jarring for an audience with sensitive ears, but just because a composition is unconventional certainly doesn't mean it's bad. To me, the selections from Teiji Ito's 'Watermill' are not just among the most noteworthy aspects of 'Little Joe,' but among the most outstanding - shrewdly digging claws into our senses to lend dark gravity to a picture that very purposefully suppresses it in the screenplay. His work has caught my imagination in a way that music has broadly failed to do recently, and now that I'm aware, I right away want find a copy of the 2008 CD release for my collection.
The acting, course of events, and even the climax are all consciously muted. The story plays with recognizable ideas we've seen before, and warps them into something distinguishably unique. The visuals presented through Hausner's camerawork, and the atypical soundtrack, are by design jolting, a harsh clash relative to the rest of the presentation. For all these reasons, 'Little Joe' won't appeal to every viewer, least of all anyone who is looking for a feature that's instantly, pointedly electrifying.
Yet for those who enjoy understated films, pictures that develop narrative with the most unhurried of paces - the kind to rather furtively slip into our mind - this is an intriguing and somewhat refreshing take on concepts that are frequently portrayed with titillation, if not outright bombast. I had mixed or uncertain expectations before watching 'Little Joe,' and ended my watch very pleased with the experience. High recommendation from me!
Little Joe
samjudd10 March 2020
Jessica Hausner's chilling psychological thriller is visually masterful however lacks a storyline worthy of it. The dizzying camera shots combined with the ominous and unnerving score creates an element of paranoia from the outset. The colours which are at points quite Wes Anderson esque can beautifully slip into the shadowy under belly of Blade Runner (1982).
The film centres on Alice who is a single mum and a dedicated breeder at a corporation which genetically engineers plants. She is working on developing a new breed that will control human emotions. Against company policy, she takes one home as a gift for her teenage son and names it after him but soon, though, she starts to fear it.
Films and literature throughout history have dealt with the raw unspoilt beauty of flowers and the untold secrets they might hold. Little Joe carries on this tradition. Although the immortal words "Life will find a way" did pop into my head a few times, the film manages to offer up enough which feels different. The theme of mental health, maybe not fully realised, raises some interesting ideas on the subject and the stigma surrounding it. It is also about relationships, which feels more fleshed out but still perhaps not fully explored.Jessica Hausner's eastern European routes and filmmaking style are at odds with the English setting, leaving the viewer with the impression of a tourist eye view of Britain.
The acting which was sometimes deliciously creepy and understated, sometimes fell into mockery and felt quite wooden. The saving grace in regards to the acting was Ben Whishaw who was the stand out performance.
Never ending whistling and high pitched noises
ukheather29 December 2019
Plant gaslights woman
lizshotter20 December 2019
Visually appealing but irritating. I don't know if that's what the producers of this were hoping for, and if so they managed to get on my nerves a lot. Everything from the music, to the main characters inability to register what's happening in front of her face. It's basically a film about a plant gaslighting a woman for two hours. I don't know what the film makers were going for and that makes this a bland and slow film
Bonkers, but not fantastically so
michael-kerrigan-526-12497425 February 2020
A genetically modified plant mutates and makes everyone happy and defend said plant to the death. It was a bit bonkers, but unlike the recent indies such as Border and In Fabric, not fantastically so. I would score the film higher in terms of quality than its entertainment value. Great colours. Great creepy soundtrack. Superbly acted. A bit dull....
needs a new score
corytrevorson14 May 2020
I'm Still With You Little Joe
daoldiges2 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Reading the viewer feedback of Little Joe it has its fair share of unfavorable reviews. Many of the issues mentioned - unusual score choice, cold/stoic performances/characters, no middle climax structure, a bit slow moving, are all which I too noticed during my viewing but found them only minimally distracting to the point where I felt Little Joe ultimately interesting and worth watching. The two issues that I found majorly distracting and bothersome was the overuse of the high-pitched sound element and the lead characters passiveness in the face of everything going on around her. Was she just really that naive, or was it a flaw in her character? I've never seen the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers but will definitely be checking it out after reading all the viewers comments. Until then though, I'm feeling fine with Little Joe.
Update of an old classic sci-fi
SkatzoFFC7 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Entertaining update on the Invasion of the body snatchers story.
Albeit with the alien plants replaced by genetically modified versions.
Interesting sound design and a few laughs along the way at the expense of the shockingly banal chemists on show.
Interesting sound design and a few laughs along the way at the expense of the shockingly banal chemists on show.
Flawed in every department, typical critic love fest
namstonk6 December 2019
So it's a modern day take on an old sci-fi classic, with a slight twist, fine we understand that quick enough. However, it fails in direction completely, cold acting with warm and pastal colours is just a cliche.
The lead actor centre stage and holding the shot whilst (kabuki) music plays (clearly thinks it has something to do with ikebana) gives an ominous feel, REALLY. You care nothing for the characters, why should you, that's the premise of the film. As for the soundtrack, well it is very annoying, a drum here, an asthmatic whistle there, a tin can, what sounds like a box of chihuahua's, just annoys the viewer. The style, it tries but falls flat, the plant is shown in vivid pink, alluding to the passion it feels, the lead actor originally wears bold colours but then the pastoral colours come in later, why they have to wear 70's clothing to allow this when the rest of the film is clearly in the here and now god knows.
A typical critics film from a director who believes their own hype finding what they need to find in films as their own lives are one dimensional and so far from a real film goer.
Don't even start on the dialogue. A ten minute short would give you a better experience.
Cold, geometric, symmetric.
krosengover24 August 2019
Bleak sci-fi drama.
garethcrook4 May 2020
A world of laboratories and genetically enhanced mood altering plants, engineered to make people happy. We're in cold sterile sci-fi territory here, the whole thing designed to be chilling. Maybe too chilling, too cool, too low key. Unusual camera work. Slow tracking shots, uncomfortably cropped, actors drifting out of frame. There's a vibe of Coma or Scanners, 70s sci-fi horror, that unnerving danger that lurks beneath the clean surface. The plants designed to have positive traits, it fast becomes clear have anything but. As Little Joe (the new species of plant) grows, it displays troubling characteristics. Hostile. It could err on the side of Little Shop of Horrors without the songs, but in fact there's very little in the way of sound for much of the film. Sparse dialogue and zero fun. A seemingly barren modern world defined only by footsteps, doors closing, key pads beeping. That is until the plants take centre stage, when a mix of sensual wind instruments and haunting percussion takes over the score. Even then, the plants are subtle hunters. Things get increasingly eerie as the plants infect the lab workers, in a super slow burn simple premise, leisurely brought to screen. It's cast is odd quite frankly and not that great... aside Ben Whishaw who's always great and Emily Beecham, who though not quite as gripping, carries the lead role well enough. It's not going to be for everyone, but if you like bleak mysterious drama, Little Joe is fertile ground.
Come for the plant, stay for tinnitus
tlharrison-5954620 July 2022
I wanted to watch this. I love when a horror movie uses bright pastels, and doesn't depend on dim lighting. The synopsis sounded interesting. I was intrigued. But I made it no more than 20 minutes in because of the constant high-pitch ringing. Why would anyone think that the continuous use of that sound effect would be beneficial to the movie??
I assume it's used because the audience is supposed to feel ill-at ease in this sterile environment, but whatever the reason, no movie is worth getting a headache.
I assume it's used because the audience is supposed to feel ill-at ease in this sterile environment, but whatever the reason, no movie is worth getting a headache.
Dry, slow but more technically proficient reimagining of Invasion of the Body Snatchers
the_lotus_eater-844-5691123 June 2020
I'll break this review down into three sections; Performance, Production, Plot.
Performance. Everyone is pretty much spot on. All the performances are reserved, which aids the intrigue of whether or not they've been infected and even when you're certain their performances always seem to leave you with a sense of doubt.
Production. This is the highlight of the movie. The sound design (both soundtrack and environmental) do a great job creating a sense of discomfort and foreboding. The costume and set design is beautiful and clinical, but also with great touches of vibrance.
Plot. By far the weakest area in the film and unfortunately what lets the film down. The idea is interesting and the way it's developed is interesting too, but plot points are often contrived or out of place and ultimately too little happens over too long a space of time to keep you fully engaged.
Performance. Everyone is pretty much spot on. All the performances are reserved, which aids the intrigue of whether or not they've been infected and even when you're certain their performances always seem to leave you with a sense of doubt.
Production. This is the highlight of the movie. The sound design (both soundtrack and environmental) do a great job creating a sense of discomfort and foreboding. The costume and set design is beautiful and clinical, but also with great touches of vibrance.
Plot. By far the weakest area in the film and unfortunately what lets the film down. The idea is interesting and the way it's developed is interesting too, but plot points are often contrived or out of place and ultimately too little happens over too long a space of time to keep you fully engaged.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
