NateWatchesCoolMovies
Before Nicholas Winding Refn blew up into the big time with intense, stylish stuff like Bronson, Drive and Valhalla Rising, and after he made his bloody emergence into cinema with Pusher, he made another film that no one seems to remember or even even like all that much. It's easy to see why Fear X wasn't that well received or remembered: it's choppy and confusing, even by Refn's terms, and doesn't pull it's third act into a cohesive resolution, instead favoring a disconcertingly surreal descent into subconscious, abstract imagery, which we all know (the careers of Lynch and others are examples) is an aesthetic not always absorbed by the most open of minds when it comes to the masses. Now that we got that out of the way, here's my take. I adore the film. It's a skitchy Midwestern nightmare that starts of gently gnawing at the fringes of your perception with a sense of dread that's intangible in its possibility, an outcome as vast and unknowable as the desolate prairie setting that calls to mind the fear and degradation of Fargo without an ounce of its good humour, black or otherwise. John Turturro inhabits this setting with a twitchy, anxious aura, suggesting a haunted mindscape beneath those famous curls. And well he should be haunted, considering his wife recently disappeared without a trace. For him, not knowing what happened is worse than any kind of grisly answer, for its a sick hollowness that chokes out any room for him to grieve. He works by day as a mall security guard, busting shoplifters and scanning snowy surveillance screens to distract himself. Then, his co-worker (Stephen Eric Mcintyre) hands him a videotape that may contain answers and be the first breadcrumb in a trail leading to his wife's killer, and possibly his solace. In a lot of films and shows like these, the protagonist ventures to a small town with sordid secrets simmering just beneath the crust of the cheerful looking pie held by the pretty waitress at the local diner. Some artists find their own groove without riffing on other's work too much, and some fall flat-footed into derivative motions. Refn is bold yet subtle in his direction once Turturro arrives in the town, and casts a deceptively innocuous yet insidiously creepy spell over the proceedings. It's essentially where the film really exits utero and manifests, the danger before that was only glimpsed on the horizon now a very real possibility, like waking up from a bad dream into a worse reality. Turturro is met with cold stares and grim greetings, especially by a deputy who becomes predatory upon seeing part of the clues he has brought with him, vaguely tied to a local resident. From there he is led to a suspicious Sheriff (James Remar), and the sheriff's wife (Deborah Kara Unger). Remar may have been involved in his wife's death, and he plays with the curtain of his performance wonderfully, pulling it back ever so slightly in scenes with Unger (some of his best work) and stirring up confusion while menacing Turturro. It's an unheralded best from him and a rare occasion where he gets to be subtle and eerie, as opposed to his usual brash, cocky characters. Unger is similar to Remar in the sense that she has made a point over the course of her career in picking obscure, challenging and unique roles to play. In playing a couple here they feel kind of star-crossed just by the nature of their careers, fed by their smoldering chemistry. The film proceeds like any thriller would, with only intangible hints at the weirdness to come, until the last half of the third act, where it abandons logic completely and dives headlong into a dreamlike abyss of surreality, without a readily discernible warning or narrative signpost. Is Turturro unstable? Or is it Remar? Or are events just taking a turn fpr the supernatural as a result of the town messing with people's psyches, a la The Shining? We will never know, and honestly I doubt Refn did, or ever will either. It's him in the sandbox, free from logic or consequence, and hate it with all your might if you wish, but you can't deny it's a psychologically galvanizing experience that toys with your perception and spooks to the core. The film deals with themes of not knowing, and open ended tragedy masked by confusion and spiraling 'what ifs'. Perhaps Refn implemented all the metaphysical hoo-hah as an extreme metaphor for Turturro's consciousness, fractured and torn by the absence of resolution to the point of madness. Or maybe Refn just likes making weird stuff. That's the eternal debate with artists like him and Lynch: do they have some plan, a secret marauders map to the strangeness that they present to us on screen which only they are privy too, or are they simply making it up as they go along, hurling paint at the canvas until they are satisfied with the result, regardless of comprehending it? We'll never know, and that for me is the beauty of it. With Fear X Refn crafts a polarizing thriller that is the very proto - example of 'love it or hate it'. It's definitely not for everyone. But love it or hate it, there's no escaping it's power.
tigercat99
Some stylish photo. Some good acting. I'll give it that much. A script not very interested in other parts than the main character – and then only to let you know he's obsessed, not to let you know him.The plot in itself may be clever -- I've read some of the other comments, references to other work seem plentiful -- or maybe it's just not clever at all and not complete. It doesn't say a thing. The pace is slow enough to give you plenty of time to try to figure out what's coming, ie figure out the plot. And if you do some figuring, you want an answer at the end. You don't get one. Lot's of threads left loose at the end. As if someone wrote a 3 hour script, then cut it down to 1,5.Or rather, to 1 hour. And filled the rest up by repeating some pretentious, simple out of plot thriller effects. They made my wife stop watching and go to bed, with a bored sigh. It could have been an OK low-key movie without this pret stuff and a bit more plot. Makes you think they couldn't come up with an end, "so let's make it incomprehensible instead".Some other comment says the movie requires you watch it a couple of times. Why should you?
dgrobinson-1
I loved this movie.I thought the character played by John Turturro was about coming to terms with the death of his wife. His wife dies in a random way, and we want there to be some purpose for every thing in life. Sometimes, there isn't a purpose.Harry (John Turturro) copes with the loss of his wife in his own way, burying his grief under layers of denial.The movie is about him coming face to face with that denial.I give this movie 9.5 out of 10, if only because it was lacking some production value that more money would have given it.The movie went into distribution hell after completion. I'm glad that it has surfaced in DVD so that others may enjoy it.
theguys1
Red hallways and dark corridors. This is all this "thriller" has to offer. And it's not even scary. It doesn't even change your idea of the movie for a second. Bottom line: Fear X is the worst, most boring film I have seen in my life.It tries to tell the story of a man whose wife was notoriously murdered. He looks at the surveillance tape showing her death, he has senseless visions, he even sneaks into the house across the street and searches in there too. Well, at the beginning of the film, it creates the idea that he is really determined to find his wife's killer, but he doesn't look hard enough. Fear X is one of those movies that you can easily fall asleep during, and you can wake up and still follow the story perfectly. Most of the scenes last way too long, without those awkward silences packed in there, this failure of a film would be about 50 minutes long. I must say that I'm surprised that I got through the whole thing. I fell asleep halfway for only ten minutes, but I didn't miss anything. And I know. The movie starts out as a thriller and ends as a huge mess unfolding before your slowly imploding eyes. If you want to see the movie, rent it. Don't buy it. It's definitely not worth it.
