I'm Thinking of Ending Things

So, this is an unironically bad film that is getting rave reviews from critics. Don't worry, I won't spoil it for you.
I sat down to watch it and I paid close attention throughout, but it never captivated me. At about the 2/3 point, the film loses the entire atmosphere it had been building up. The dialogue is all over the place, characters are not consistent in any way (even personality) from one minute to the next. As a consequence, the film does show off the acting talents available to it, and the actors do well embodying each of these personalities. There are some good shots, there is some good lighting, and there is good acting. But the characters are inconsistent, the dialogue quality is inconsistent, the storytelling is inconsistent, etc etc etc. It's a jumbled mess.
I've been watching art house films, surrealist films, experimental films, etc for decades. This is not one of those. After the film was over I turned to my girlfriend and told her there's a difference between making surreal film and making dada. She asked me what dada is. I told her it's art without any substance made for the sole purpose of pissing off artists. That's what I think I'm Thinking of Ending Things is: dada. I can honestly see the script writer cutting out random words from a newspaper, dumping them all over the floor, and using that as a script here.
As a consequence of the terrible writing and pacing, the film wastes the good aspects it does have (such as the actors). There are also various cringe-inducing fourth wall breaking segments.
If this film has anything to say, it's probably something like "this is what it's like to have crippling brain damage". 4/10.

Attached: itoet.jpg (750x445, 60K)

Nice blogpost zoomie

this isn't letterboxd

>The dialogue is all over the place, characters are not consistent in any way (even personality) from one minute to the next.
That's literally THE POINT, retard.

Your gf saw the title and probably got inspired

The point of the movie (I won't any longer grace it by calling it a film) was to present a random assortment of scenes using mostly the same two actors?
There were no connecting strings. There was no association between one scene and the next outside of the central premise of the film, but that central premise is lost 2/3 of the way through.
But if that's really the point, then I think as a general rule film students should be taught on the first day of their first class in their first semester in film school that having a schizophrenically slammed together mess of scenes does not make an engaging or even interesting final product.

It's a portraying a man in mental decline as he constantly reimagines a fake girlfriend based on some chick he was eyeing at a bar 4 decades ago. No shit the characters aren't consistent, nothing about the story is consistent because the dude can't keep a straight thought throughout. He doesn't know how to interact with people, so he just pictures conversations as inserting things he's read or moments from movies throughout conversations. All of the elements of their back stories are fluid and even the names change. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to not understand the point of it.

Attached: 1522278288944.jpg (640x625, 66.96K)

>present a random assortment of scenes using mostly the same two actors?
It was to convey 'something' using what you mentioned as a tool. If you don't understand what the movie was conveying I can explain it

Yes, so much was obvious from the first scene that featured the old man — I actually pointed that out to my girlfriend — but that doesn’t make it good, accurate to the science of mental health, or even interesting. This is what bad storytelling looks like.

The film is from the point of view of a suicidal janny suffering from dementia. I found it boring too but the characters acting inconsistent actually makes sense