Have any horror fans on here checked out Skinamarink? It’s a new, ultra low budget ($15k) film that’s unlike almost anything I’ve ever seen. It’s like if David Lynch made a found footage film. It feels like watching a nightmare. It’s slow going and more mood than plot, but if you like that kind of thing, it’s worth checking out. I saw it two days ago and can’t stop thinking about it.
I've read a couple of articles about this film and I'm intrigued. Does it have a satisfactory payoff?
I thought so. It plays by its own rules, though, and really only follows dream logic. It’s hard to talk about the payoff without giving much away but I think they stick the landing
I saw it and was not impressed. It’s interesting that an experimental film has somehow made it into a decent number of theaters. I couldn’t tell you the last time something this simple has been on this many screens. There’s no real plot, not real acting, just long off centered shots of ceilings, walls, halls and legos underlit. There are a few lines of dialogue. There are a few jump scares that are basically just ear shatteringly loud noises. Lots of strobing lights from a TV playing public domain clips. But, I’m not exaggerating. That’s the entirety of the film. The film was shot on digital. Fake film grain and film damage was added to make it look 70s-ish, even though the movie is set in 1995. There are a lot of technical issues with the film, not the least of which are the amateurish digital effects. For me it was the emperor has no clothes. For young people who’ve never seen the experimental cinema of the 60-70s, it may seem new. A lot of it has to do with if the movie’s triggers trip the creepy factor for you and you dig the vibe. Otherwise, there’s no content to appreciate. There were a bunch of walkouts in my showing. When the lights came on, everyone just started laughing. My showing was very well behaved, but anyone who walks into my this unknowingly is probably going to have a strong negative reaction.
I don’t agree that there’s no plot. It’s a light plot, but there are clear characters and events the characters go through. It’s more about visualizing the emotion of those experiences than the narrative structure. I spent a while today going through fan reactions and there’s a good range of interpretations. I like that it’s so open and the director hasn’t explained anything. You get what you get out of it, which could very well be nothing! It’s an abstract art film so it’ll always be a hard sell in big theaters. I’m glad I got to see it there; it’s too easy for me to lose focus at home
When it comes to the plot, Spoiler I left with the impression that it’s a child’s emotional reaction to trauma. That trauma could be any number of things, and I’ve seen theories that it’s an abusive parent, a parent that abandoned the family or died, or it’s Kevin’s eventual succumbing to the head injury mentioned at the start. Of course, “he fell down and hit his head” is a common cover story for abuse too. Something terrible happened in that house and what we see is a kid processing that emotionally. What they’re seeing doesn’t make sense to them, so it’s presented in a way that doesn’t make sense to the viewer most of the time. Some folks also see the entity as a literal supernatural antagonist that enjoys tormenting the kids, but I don’t like that interpretation as much. The good part is that it works either way.
I think we agree. There are visual cues, but we don’t what is real, imagination, a coma, a nightmare or any numbers of explanations. The film certainly doesn’t provide a structured narrative or what most people would consider a traditional plot. The meaning is whatever you read into those images and sounds.
I’m sure my appreciation is also tied to growing up in the 80s/90s and spending a lot of time alone watching cartoons like that
I remember a line in an old Ian & Sylvia Beggarman song went "skinamarink-a-doodle and it's old Johnny Dew" Horror + folk music = sure fire smash! Then again... I thought The Sound Of Music was a horror picture. "The hills are alive! Run for the... valleys?"
It’s been in my head all weekend. This article gets into why they chose that title Skinamarink director chose mysterious title because it 'feels personal' to him
But I love experimental weirdness, I might add. Here was my shot. (a single shot) at an experimental horror film. lol
We saw it Saturday night. I initially disliked it a lot and we almost left before the end. After I thought about it a bit, it was somewhat interesting. I didn't find it particularly scary except for sudden jump scares which were disturbingly loud. I'm not sure if it was intentional or just the sound system in the theater.
The whole thing seemed too loud. What little dialogue there was, was hard to understand because it was so loud and distorted.
I talked with a few friends about the dialogue and how some was very hard to understand and only about half had subtitles. I think it all comes back to dream/nightmare logic and seeing from a small child’s perspective. The kid doesn’t understand everything going on, so we don’t either.
I saw it in theaters here. Was hoping to like it but ended up fairly disappointed. truthfully my main gripe was the film grain effect they used. They seem to only have gotten a 15 second clip of grain and they play it forward and backwards for the whole film. I started noting pretty quickly how the same scratch or hair would pop up in the same spot. Given the atmosphere is 90% of the movie this clear artifice really wrecked it for me. It’s not a bad idea overall but poor execution. also found the jump scares some of the most obnoxious ever I don’t mind a good one but these just seemed mean to the audiences ears. ironically I think it would be better on a small screen to less notice this gaff.
You’re right. I don’t know if it was amateurism or cynicism on the director’s part, but the digital processing to make the film look worn is straight up bad. YouTube level bad. Anyone who has the slightest familiarity with film is going to immediately pick up on the “film grain” and “film damage” as being fake. And not just fake, the worst fake you’ve ever seen projected on a screen. The grain actually pauses every 10 seconds or so and seems to reverse.
I was too wrapped up in it to focus on the digital effect. Dude made the movie for $15k, cut him some slack
Considering the movie is a lot of staring into darkness covered in film grain for minutes on end, it’s hard to ignore. Respect for indie filmmakers, but bad technique is bad technique. These are technical issues that easily could have been fixed in days if not hours (the stuttering film grain could have been fixed in minutes by correcting the loop). I’m fine with cheap, but sloppy is a different animal. The best low budget filmmaker know how to hide the flaws and limitations rather than amplify them.
