THIN-SKINNED
How bad is 2022's Skinamarink? Let me put it this way, how bad is SARS? I'm thinking pretty bad. When you watch Skinamarink, you wonder how anyone let alone a studio head could greenlight this thing. I mean did they lose a bet to the film's directors (Kyle Edward Ball, Kyle Ball)? Probably. I can't see any other way.
So yeah, Skinamarink might be the most frustrating movie I've ever seen. Why? Because it has intentions yet is miscalculated to the nth degree. The Balls made Skinamarink and forgot that someone might actually see their creation that looks as if it was made in the late 60s or early 70s. The flick is so grainy you'd think an assistant accidentally poured sawdust in the lens. Basically Skinamarink is a 100-minute gimmick that is not meant to entertain but to impart to. Count me out after one viewing.
Contrivances aside, Skinamarink's premise is there for the taking. It's about two kids who wake up to find a family member missing with all the doors and windows gone from their house. Rather than go the straight-forward route with a stout thriller, the Balls decide to do an arthouse version of Paranormal Activity instead. Why? Why?!!
The whole thing is a shaggy-dog story and a mind-numbing bore, all slow burned, disjointed, and prepped for the snooty crowd. Um, you know this pic is bad when the stuff on the TV in Skinamarink is more interesting than what's actually projected onto the viewer. I mean at least you know what's going on with those kooky cartoons.
In Skinamarink, there are actors who are never seen, dialogue exchanges that never occur (with characters only having random thoughts), subtitles for something in English (wha??), scenes that are cut feverishly with no connection from point A to B, and a title that has no attested meaning. Yup, it all adds up to bunk. "Skin don't gotta have it".
Written by Jesse Burleson
No comments:
Post a Comment