Enemy movie rating: red light

Enemy red light

Jake Gyllenhaal meets his doppelgänger — or maybe it’s also him — and mostly they argue over whether they are secretly fucking each other’s female property and so everyone gets extremely upset.
I’m “biast” (pro): love Jake Gyllenhaal

I’m “biast” (con): nothing

I have not read the source material

(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)

(My Ratings posts are a quick way for me to share my reaction to a film. This post will be updated if/when I ever write a review. Feel free to discuss the movie in depth in the comments section.)

share and enjoy
             
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
subscribe
notify of
19 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Filmguy
Filmguy
Fri, Aug 15, 2014 1:32pm

This isn’t a review and while the idea of patriarchal proprietorship is a worthwhile exploration, you miss the mark by suggesting that the two undertake any such argument (the accusations were strategic, insincere and came from Anthony only). I wish you expanded on your thought, though. You might of had something interesting to say.

bronxbee
reply to  Filmguy
Fri, Aug 15, 2014 4:12pm

if you take the time to read other reviews on this site, you will see that the “idea of patriarchal proprietorship” has been explored several times. this movie seemed to the reviewer to not require an in-depth review.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Filmguy
Sat, Aug 16, 2014 1:25am

You know what? I’m sick to death of talking about movies about men and their butthurt over property rights over women.

SuzyQueue
SuzyQueue
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Aug 24, 2014 7:59am

Great that you would express your frustrations by using a euphemism about male ass-rape in your acrobatic attempt to concisely pin this movie as nothing more than a misogynist trope.

As a critic it would be awesome if you could spend more than 30 seconds to express more than your disappointment at being born a woman, and instead offer some insight as to why you didn’t like this movie.

“men and their butthurt over property rights over women.” Christ… get a grip on yourself.

Realist
Realist
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Sep 11, 2014 11:43pm

And I’m sick of people completely misinterpreting movies to fit their own social agenda. Only a dark and pessimistic mind would be so misguided as to see a certain aspect of a story, rip it out of it’s context and then use it as an example of injustice.

Maybe I should rage about how the movie portrays all men as being exactly the same?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Realist
Fri, Sep 12, 2014 8:07pm

It’s cute that you don’t think you interpret movies to fit your “social agenda.”

Maybe I should rage about how the movie portrays all men as being exactly the same?

Maybe you should. That’s a good interpretation… and an enraging attitude that I have raged against before.

Felix
Felix
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Sep 15, 2014 2:14pm

Greetings! The author of the book made it perfectly clear what the movie is about. (spoiler ahead) It’s about an insecure guy cheating on his pregnant girlfriend because he feels surpressed by her and the unborn child. There is no doppelgänger and no giant spider attacking the city. But don’t worry – you are not the only one who didn’t get it.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Felix
Mon, Sep 15, 2014 5:36pm

You do realize that I’m not reviewing the book, right?

DerpDerp Review Derp
DerpDerp Review Derp
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Nov 30, 2014 2:05am

The film spelled that imagery out quite clearly. Please pay attention to a film when you view it. Watching it in the background while you do something else is no way to review a film with deep, thoughtful imagery.

Kevin Thomsen
Kevin Thomsen
Tue, Nov 11, 2014 7:55pm

I guess I took Gyllenhall’s characters to intentionally be creeps, two obsessive, possessive men responding to a bizarre situation. (I kinda like movies about horrible people :P)

Derpderp Review Derp
Derpderp Review Derp
Sun, Nov 30, 2014 2:03am

You have missed the mark so hard on this breathtakingly brilliant film, it’s disturbing, and I hope the rest of your professional career allows you to look more closely at imagery and symbolism in film when writing reviews for movies.

Patriarchal proprietorship is not a theme present in this movie. You dumbed this film down to what it is without its imagery, and without any deeper thought. Check out Chris Stuckmann’s Youtube video explaining the film so you can better understood the majesty of it.

Cheers.

PianoInBush
PianoInBush
Sat, Dec 06, 2014 9:54pm

Well, this is just ridiculous. One of the points of the movie was to put down such attitude towards women and you see it as a fault? Oh boy.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  PianoInBush
Sun, Dec 07, 2014 1:41pm

Did it not occur to you that I did not see any such point in the movie?

PianoInBush
PianoInBush
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Dec 07, 2014 2:43pm

That’s exactly my point. The whole idea of the movie flew right past you.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  PianoInBush
Mon, Dec 08, 2014 11:52am

Or else “the whole idea of the movie” isn’t as definitive as you think it is.

PianoInBush
PianoInBush
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Dec 08, 2014 11:59am

It’s not. But it certainly looks as if you’re dismissing it for being one-note and obvious.

Mike C
Mike C
Wed, Dec 17, 2014 7:13am

People struggle to realize that this movie isn’t one that’s up for interpretation. There is no doppelgänger they are in fact the same person. Half the movie is a battle of the subconscience

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Mike C
Wed, Dec 17, 2014 12:51pm

“People struggle to realize…” means that the movie is up for interpretation. You just don’t like MaryAnn’s interpretation.

I find it really interesting that so many people think there’s only one way to interpret a movie, and it’s always the interpretation they’ve chosen. I’ve had similar conversations about the Bible.

JustGreg
JustGreg
Thu, Mar 25, 2021 3:50pm

Caught this last night on On Demand and even before the introduction of the extremely off-putting women as property trope, I thought the movie was minimalist art house garbage. So they look alike, who cares? That was the completely unbelievable reason that the extremely well educated college professor instantly became a bumbling idiot and began acting like a stalker-ish, crazed fan of someone who appears as a non-speaking bit player in movies? Even criminally accepting a letter addressed to the other guy labeled personal and confidential? This might make for an interesting subplot in a superior film but here this was the film.

No. Nah-ah. And the film’s score was intrusive and annoying – music telling me how I was supposed to feel before the characters were even presented with something to ponder and act on.

I can only take in what is presented to me on the screen, not the source material simultaneously. (Interesting that people think we should do both in one sitting.) What was presented to me for an hour and a half was annoying tedium with a huge dose of the dreary set to the tunes of a foreboding score carrying the load of an ineffective filmmaker. I can understand Jake Gyllenhaal taking this (these) role but I don’t know what the hell Melanie Laurent and Isabella Rossellini were thinking.