Quantcast
your £$ support needed

part of a small rebellion | by maryann johanson

Enemy movie rating: red light

Tue Jun 24 2014, 02:53pm | 18 comments

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.)


Even just $1, just once, is a huge help. Thank you!
support my work at PayPal support my work at Patreon support my work at Ko-Fi support my work at Liberapay More details...

watch at home

Enemy (2014)
US/Can release: Mar 14 2014 (VOD Feb 06 2014)
UK/Ire release: Jan 02 2015

MPAA: rated R for some strong sexual content, graphic nudity and language
BBFC: rated 15 (strong sex, strong language)

viewed on my iPad

official site | IMDb | trailer
more reviews: Movie Review Query Engine | Rotten Tomatoes

If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.

  • Filmguy

    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

    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.

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

  • SuzyQueue

    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

    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?

  • 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

    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.

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

  • Kevin Thomsen

    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

    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.

  • DerpDerp Review Derp

    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.

  • PianoInBush

    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.

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

  • PianoInBush

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

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

  • PianoInBush

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

  • Mike C

    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

    “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.

Pin It on Pinterest