Fear X (2003)
sombre, hallucinatory 'Fear X' is a welcome addition to the most entertainingly intellectual of subgenres, the 'existential' thriller,
Starring: John Turturro, Deborah Kara Unger, Stephen McIntyre, William Allen Young, Eugene M. Davis, Mark Houghton, Jaqueline Ramel, James Remar, Nadia Litz, Amanda Ooms
Director: Nicolas Winding Refn
Running Time: 91 minutes
US MPAA rating: N/AUK BBFC rating: 12A
Thriller
Most mystery-thrillers pose a question of highly limited scope (e.g. 'whodunnit?'), and carefully withhold or obscure the answer until the climax, where all is revealed in a (hopefully unexpected) dénouement. Occasionally, however, the genre can be used not only to pose much bigger, more philosophical questions about the nature of human identity, the treacheries of imagined reality, and the limits of cinema itself - but also to answer these questions at best ambiguously, and at worst irrationally, or even not at all. The sombre, hallucinatory 'Fear X' is a welcome addition to this most entertainingly intellectual of subgenres, the 'existential' thriller, whose dark enigmas challenge and mystify viewers without ever recoursing to the disappointment of some insultingly pat solution.
Harry Cain (John Turturro) lives a half-life of grief and insomnia. He spends his days shuffling through his job as a security guard in a shopping mall, unsettling the customers with his manic stare - while his nights are spent at home obsessively reviewing footage from the mall's multiple security cameras. For he hopes to find a clue which will throw light on the recent death of his pregnant wife Claire, who fell victim to an unsolved, and apparently motiveless double-shooting in the mall's car park. Following the wildest, flimsiest of leads, including his own dreams, and a photo of an unknown woman found in the vacant house over the road, Harry ends up staying in a hotel in a Montana town, where he seems to stumble upon a secretive conspiracy.
'Fear X' is the first English-language film by Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn ('Pusher', 'Bleeder'), who co-wrote the spare, brooding script with Hubert Selby Jr. ('Last Exit to Brooklyn'). The first half of the film recalls Antonioni's 'Blow Up' and Coppola's 'The Conversation', sharing their reflexive concern with a character who seeks deeper meaning in a disparate assemblage of recorded materials - even the name of Turturro's obsessive, alienated protagonist recalls the name of Coppola's similar antihero, Harry Caul. Once Harry has reached Montana, however, and is wandering the hotel corridors, unsure whether he is awake or dreaming, it is as though Turturro has gone right back to his title-rôle in the Coen brothers' 'Barton Fink', while the bloodred-stained interiors are straight out of The Shining (on which cinematographer Larry J. Smith had worked previously). All these are lofty models to live up to, but Refn's examination of the isolation, confusion and madness of grief certainly holds its own. The ever excellent Turturro offers a masterclass in low-key performance, and his minimalist portrayal of the extremes of human despair is aided considerably both by Brian Eno's hauntingly sparse soundtrack, and by the film's sets, especially Harry's house and the hotel, where alienation walks the halls as an almost palpable presence.
The result is a film that satisfies on many levels. All at once a crime thriller, an engaging tragedy and a perplexing puzzle, 'Fear X' is as troubling as it is moving, and more than rich enough to repay multiple viewings - or, as Harry himself puts it: "Who knows what you might find if you keep looking?"
It's Got: A sombre mood, a bereaved protagonist, a secretive conspiracy and a whole lot of red.
It Needs: A less banal title.
Alternatives: 'Blow Up', 'The Conversation', 'Barton Fink', 'Lost Highway', 'Mulholland Drive', One Hour Photo, Swimming Pool, 21 Grams, 'The Star Chamber'
Summary: A sombre, multi-layered mystery of bereavement and revenge, obscuring its solution in a blood-red mist.
External Links
Fear X at the IMDB
Comments12 Comments |
| I cant believe that you think this film is anything but an uncomplicated plot with a story line that I can only compare to watching flies eat from a steaming pile of ****e. There was a number of people that watched this movie with me and I nearly got the **** kicked out of me for making them watch it. Please edit your review to prevent other members of the sain public entering the two hours of absolute ****. I can't enficise enough my revolt for this waste of my presious life. Please, please, please encourage people to distroy this film before our society is poluted any further. A big film fan. |
| Comment by:- I dont think I should tell you | | 11 July 2004 | ip: logged |
| hehe |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 30 July 2004 | ip: logged |
| Try to ignore the utter ignoramus who first commented on this. This film (unlike him) is intelligent and thoughtful |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 05 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I agree with 5 August comments. I would enficise that any sain person would rely on the review rather than this review of the review. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 06 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I found the movie a little slow but worth a watch all the same. I could understand some people not liking this style and pace, but I quite liked it and would give it 6/10 |
| Comment by:- kel hill | | 28 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| it's emphasise, not enficise. and the film was boring and confusing. there couldn't have been a more unsatisfying ending. what the hell happened? |
| Comment by:- fim buff | | 11 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| The first 45 minutes suggested that this film is going to go somewhere, stalled for a bit, and then after the scene with the guys in the office (with the two odd looking guys), it just got stupid. At which point did reality become fantasy, was it in the lift after he got shot or was it way before then? |
| Comment by:- Jeff Lebowkski | | 25 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| how can i get my $2.00 back from the video shop? |
| Comment by:- sleepy | | 28 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| A guy whose wife got shot dead in the mall where he works obsessively tries to find her killer…for no apparent reason he decides it's the guy next door and having broken in finds a strip of film on the floor, gets the film developed and finds pictures of people who have no connection with his wife, follows 'clues' on them to Montana [I fall asleep at this point wake up and] he's shot in a lift. The end. Hooray - the longest 90 minutes i have ever experienced and hell i watch conference football every week so thats saying something. Dont confuse this pretentious trash with the Lynch and Kubrick it feebly imitates: where 2001 or Mulholland Drive may baffle they intrigue you and make you WANT to understand (and they are gloriously cinematic outside any 'meaning' they may have) where this makes you glad its over and never wanting to see it again. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 01 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| I understand some people may have trouble not knowing all the answers after watching a movie, but I thought that this movie was great, there are so many possibilities to where that road at the end could lead him ... looking forward to more films by this Director |
| Comment by:- wunderscat | | 11 March 2005 | ip: logged |
| Yeah, good thing someone was stupid enough to leave a strip of film (in an age of digital) on the floor right next door to the guys house or we wouldn't have gotten to see all the hip red shag carpet in that hotel that sends hookers to your room without asking. I really need to vacation in Montana |
| Comment by:- Brian | | 30 April 2005 | ip: logged |
| When I first watched the film I was just scratching my head trying to figure everything out. How did he know to check the house across the street, etc. Do you think the entire sequence in Montana was just in his mind? |
| Comment by:- JoJo | www.jimmyvincent.com/cgi-local... | 29 July 2005 | ip: logged |
