MovieChat Forums > Fear X (2003) Discussion > All questions about the movie answered.....

All questions about the movie answered...by the director

posted 18 years ago by ericball23
49 replies | jump to latest

I thought half way through the movie that it was going to be one of the best psychological thrillers around...then the rest of the movie happened. We are left with circumstancial/imaginatory/meaningless pieces to fit together. I now say meaningless because the director admitted to purposely failing to wrap the movie's loose ends up because he did not know how to. This was a complete waste of an hour and a half of my life I will never see again...all who have seen it understand completely. Could have and SHOULD have been a really good movie...Just pick a scenario and go with it. We as the audience just want a resolution. Harry killed her and went schizo...or Peter killed her and there was a cover up after Harry killed Peter. But please, whatever you do, don't show us the relationship between Peter and his wife and get us interested in...a) characters that don't exist, or b)ones that won't be elaborated and developed properly because you are running out of time or ideas. Also, don't use the color red in Harry's dreams and throughout the second half of the movie in any terrible attempt at symbolism you, yourself don't understand. Don't show us a face trying to force itself through a huge fruit roll up because you got high one night during production and thought it would add some sort of depth to a plotless and thoughtless waste of time that would later have only one copy sent to movie rental stores and ultimately have me sitting at my computer at 4 in the morning after searching the internet for some sort of explanation as to what in the hell I had spent the past couple hours wasting my life doing. And lastly, and basically firstly again, if you have stolen time from hundreds of actors and thousands of viewers, and have failed as a director to conclude your movie in an appropriate manner, for God sake man, make something up...anything. Here is a link where the director, whos name I have already forgotten...thankfully...explains that movies don't need endings. Please let Fear X be your last then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A2453717

[–] Maxsa 18 years ago

This may not have been the worst movie I have ever seen, that dishonor goes to Magnolia but it certainly was the most pointless and taken as a whole the most boring.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] m_de_heij 17 years ago

Magnolia? I think that movie is awesome! Better than this one anyway.

I don't mind a movie having a vague ending and I don't mind multiple possible explanations of the movie's plot, but this was just too weird... A bit of a dissappointment really, cause I really did like the first half.

[–] fatpie42 11 years ago

I think I'd have been more disappointed with Fear X if it ended with the cast all having a sing along while it rained frogs. Just saying...

Fear X had potential to be a better movie. I don't think I can say that of Magnolia.

[–] bmystery8 18 years ago

AMEN!!!! I could not have put this better. I'm getting my movie rental money back!!!

[–] redhedmcclure 18 years ago

SPOILER:

This film SPOILS itself.

[–] gazzasanderson 18 years ago

It was an awful movie, awful

Suddenly three quarters the way through the movie I realized just how awful it was because I was practically deafened by a sudden burst of conversation between the Police guy Peter and his wife. Up until that point every conversation had been about three sentences long (aside from Harry being grilled by the Police - which also provided the only SMILE of the movie in response to a question). The direness of having to continually witness every characters heavy stares into the distance and statue-like poses in the middle of the room from Harry. Endless views of a TV screen playing footage from a shopping mall security camera.

Some of the threads on this movies message board have talked about Schizophrenia theories and the like. Listen, deliberating whether Verbal Klint is Keyser Soze is one thing, but deliberating whether Harry is Peter; even if there were clues that some of you guys think you can see; is just pointless because the movie is just not interesting enough. I suspect most of you are seeing these clues to whether Harry is Peter because you want to show off some kind of intelligence you think you have - there was NOTHING in this movie to sustain that kind of interest.

In fact, it's so uninteresting, that the IMDB homepage for 'Fear X' doesn't even have a 'memorable quotes' section.

It is a dreadful, boring, empty movie and all you guys making up theories are basing it on nothing. Who were the Police Officers speaking to at the Hospital? Who cares? The Director purposely made that person invisible or was too stupid to widen the screen to include him/her. You're all basing your theories on your own imaginations rather than realizing that the Director is truly awful and hasn't put together a movie to base your deliberations on.

Without question the most awful 90 minutes of my life.

As a footnote I was practically swearing at my wife at the point when they dropped Harry off at his car - which was in the middle of who knows where. I said I had a feeling this was about to end without the audience being told what happened to Peter. I couldn't believe my eyes when it did actually happen like that. I sat through 90 minutes of garbage just to be left even more annoyed because this smug ass of a Director doesn't believe in endings: "It depends on how I feel that day. And of course that pisses off a lot of people because they’re not used to a film without an ending. But what the *beep* is an ending, you know?” - Nicolas Winding Refn, Director 'Fear X'

[–] ewanjjeffrey 18 years ago

"What the *beep* IS an ending"? I suppose it's something that closes off a film and then makes us forget about it, rather than irritating/stimulating/provoking us into writing to a messageboard. Nice work, Refn. You got us talking.

[–] n_fossatti 18 years ago

Without doubt the worst film i have ever seen....and i watched plan 9 from outer space.
I should have followed my brother's example when he went to sleep instead of staying awake to witness the most dreadful movie "ending" i have ever seen

[–] steranim 18 years ago

i cannot believe that it is 7:32 am and i'm searching the ner for a meaning to this incredable waste of time... as harry's pocket full of photos blew away in the wind and i realized that the end was but a few seconds away... my anger grew to a boiling point... as was said further up this page... an hour and a half of my life i will never get back... thank you mr "whatever-your-name-is" director for an incredible waste of my time... please go back to working at burger king...

[–] Dashkatt 16 years ago

The scene where Harry riffles the group of photos and then releases them to be carried away by the wind had a profound effect on my opinion of the film.

The meaning of the above mentioned scene was a subtle reminder that, (the photos), were your money that you paid to see this clunker... blowing away in the wind.

Holy cow, I keep thinking I'd previously seen the worst film ever, only to be shown I was wrong once again.

zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz

Sorry, I drifted off...

[–] matt_s 16 years ago

I'm doing the exact same thing at the exact same time.

[–] stunt_boi 16 years ago

hahaha hated this movie so much it made me look up information about it and make a trip to it's bulletin board to talk about it...

hahahahaha

way to try to insult someone by implying that burger king is their next option....

they got funding for a movie... AND worked with hubert selby jr...

can you???

[–] Zando777 16 years ago

How does this prove anything? It occurred before the moview was made. And what kind of name is Hubert anyway?

[–] KingSleaze 11 years ago

Idiot... He made Pusher, which was a masterpiece before thi movie... That's how he got funded

[–] kishrandy 18 years ago

2 word review.....

[–] claudeh-1 18 years ago

This film is really awful.
I agree with the thought that it is 90 minutes wasted.
I am not going to criticize the director for his view "what the beep is an ending ...." although it does seem to be kind of arrogant. I as a viewer expect stories to have a beginning, a middle part and an ending. If I wanted to play around with puzzles (jigsaw, crossword, etc.) I'd get a puzzle. Through the centuries authors of one kind or another have been remembered because they have shown respect towards their audience. I somehow doubt that Mr. Refn's contribution will attain that kind of notoriety.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Erwin-6 18 years ago

"We as the audience just want a resolution"

Well speak for yourself my friend, not all viewers want/need their films (or books or whatever art or entertainment) to explain everything.

I don't. As a matter of fact I find films that DON'T wrap everything up with a nice & easy explanation (or even worse... "a message") and leave things to your imagination a lot more interesting.

I found this, while it's maybe not 100% successful, a very interesting, thought-provoking film. And that's more than can be said about 99% of the rubbish that's being released.

[–] Vitriol_Dada 17 years ago

Well said, Erwin-6. Personally, I adore films that end without a particular explanation. I think that with a good script and with good directing, this kind of movies can be far more thought-provoking, and even frightening, than any "psychological" or "high-quality-special-effects" thriller. Would films such as Eraserhead or The Lost Highway be so interesting and atmospheric, if they ended with an easy/objective explanation or (as you have put it) "a message"? Certainly not. I believe that sometimes you need to feel a film, not try to explain it with logic. It can feel as if you are in a dream, where things work emotionally rather than logically.

Even though I don't see Fear X as a great movie, I find it a fairly good and interesting film, mostly because of the sound and the directing of certain scenes that managed to resemble a dream-like situation (at the hotel and when Harry was alone at his house, for example). I don't see why film-making (being a form of art) shouldn't use certain images simply because of their own aesthetic, and for no other (obvious) reason at all. But anyway, let us not forget: everything is a matter of personal taste. However:

1. If the only interesting movies are those with a "memorable quotes" section on their IMDb homepage, then silent films should be considered the most dull and boring movies of all time. Sure they had quotes, but acting was far more important than those.

2. Up until now, I'd never heard that authors show respect towards their audience by writing stories that have a beginning, a middle part and an ending. I've always thought that an author's (just like any other artist's) "obligation" is to stay true to himself and to fullfill his need to express himself; nothing more, nothing less. After all, no artist compels you to buy/read/watch his work, right? And anyway, there will always be new artistic movements. Take Anton Chekhov, for example. Instead of writing about a big event or about something striking happening in the lives of his heroes (like most authors do), he would rather write about a particular time period of their everyday lives. Some people find this boring. From what I know now, some could even find him disrespectfull towards his audience because of that. However, Anton Chekhov has been remembered. I'm not comparing Nicolas Winding Refn to Anton Chekhov, not at all. What I'm trying to say is that an artist doesn't have to be "mainstream" or follow certain "rules" in order to be a good artist.

Hands up, who wants to die?

[–] rivethead808 17 years ago

I completely agree with everything you just said Vitriol. Well done. I think Im pretty much the only one who not only liked the movie, but loved it. Its actually listed in my profile in my "top film lists".

The only thing I will say is this: Nicholas Winding Refn simply shouldnt have admitted that it had no ending. Once thats said, there is this magical "bubble" that pops. I admit it popped a little for me too. AND I will admit that immediately after the credits rolled on this I was a little miffed and I went STRAIGHT to the imdb boards (this was about 5 months ago) and saw that it literally didnt have an ending. At first I was kinda pissed, but after a very short period of time, I got over it and decided that no matter what it was a great film. It was this film that prompted me to check out other films of his. I ended up seeing Pusher months later and liked that as well, but believe it or not, I like Fear X better. The one I really want to see is Bleeder though and I cant find that for rent anywhere unfortunately.

My Collection: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11097838

[–] Vitriol_Dada 17 years ago

"I completely agree with everything you just said Vitriol. Well done."

Thanks

Hands up, who wants to die?

[–] smoke0 17 years ago

I would have liked to think that this was one of those great films set up to induce interpretation, but the difference is the director's complete lack of vision. If he has no clue what he is doing, how can the viewer feel anything but cheated? David Lynch may not be able to explain every scene in one of his films, but he knows what he is doing, what works and what doesn't. This director all but admitted that he wasted everyone's time, including his own.

[–] Zando777 16 years ago

Yeah, Mulholland Drive is a great film because, despite it's complexity, it ultimately makes sense.

Not sure about this one.

[–] fhinch 16 years ago

Darwinianism dictates that organisms that cannot adapt or survive in the environment are doomed to extinction. Starving artists are doomed. However, upon their deaths their work becomes 'discovered' and thereby relevant, valuable, and 'art'. This will NOT happen to Herr Refn. The utter shame of this 'film' is that ir was not recorded on an erasable medium, to be reused immediately to record one's pets frolicking in the backyard.
It is said that God does not count the time you spend fishing in your life; that cannot be said about the time spent watching 'Fear X'.
In algebra, 'x' is an unknown variable. Until I watched this movie, I never quite understood the meaning of an unknown variable.

[–] krosszone 17 years ago

I don't usually like to take a dump in the public port-a-potty and add my *beep* opinion to an already heaping pile of stinking mess, but I have to defend not this movie in particular, but any movie from having to have neat, logical explanations to every scene depicted on screen. viewers don't seem to demand that of david lynch. go try to add up Inland Empire. it was not conceived or executed with that kind of deductive reasoning in mind. put Fear X in the same category and quit trying to decipher it. the movie is compelling because of its mystery, kind of like life itself, which does not provide every answer.

Do you think Impressionist painting is so hated because it doesn't depict reality as the human eye perceives it? I think people love/hate this movie because it makes them question things, elevating it to something of a intellectual experience which American audiences in particular seem to vehemently resist.
Fear X is no masterpiece, but it is different, and in this day and age with all the cinematic cotton candy being spun, that makes it worthwhile.

[–] Zando777 16 years ago

It's not intellectual. It's stupid and lazy.

It's this kind of stupidity and laziness that American audiences, in particular, vehemently resent.

I hope this helps.

[–] Zando777 16 years ago

It doesn't have to be a "nice & easy explanation"...

But some kind of ending is always nice, unless you're just too lazy to include one.

[–] elakin 16 years ago

You can't be serious. The movie was crap.
Regards,
EL

I found this, while it's maybe not 100% successful, a very interesting, thought-provoking film. And that's more than can be said about 99% of the rubbish that's being released.

[–] velvet_virginia 17 years ago

Best review of a movie. EVER. Thumbs up to you!

[–] valis1949 17 years ago

Movies are an attempt to mirror real life, and 'Life' is full of things that don't make sense. Movies that imply that all "loose threads" are neatly attended to after an hour and forty minutes do a real disservice to the viewer. I find it a refreshing change to finish a film, and have questions linger. If you like pat answers and easily solved moral tales, stick with Willis and Eastwood.

[–] velvet_virginia 17 years ago

...Or sometimes they just blow ass.

[–] awhite787 17 years ago

"Don't show us a face trying to force itself through a huge fruit roll up because you got high one night during production and thought it would add some sort of depth to a plotless and thoughtless waste of time that would later have only one copy sent to movie rental stores and ultimately have me sitting at my computer at 4 in the morning after searching the internet for some sort of explanation as to what in the hell I had spent the past couple hours wasting my life doing"

Thanks for the post. I was ROFLMAO when I read this part.

[–] paulaberge 16 years ago

Me too - and as I read through the other pretentious stuff, that line gets even funnier. I don't "need" an ending, I just need something - as the previous poster said sometimes they just blow, and this one certainly did. If it hadn't been so good and intriguing to begin with I wouldn't feel so strongly about it now. It doesn't even qualify as a movie to inspire debate or conversation, it just sucked.

[–] gherz 17 years ago

Thank God for TIVO where you can delay the viewing and fast forward through those boring silent scenes to the "wha?" ending. Enough loose ends to last a lifetime.

[–] Random Terrain 17 years ago

The director said that he took out everything that was logical and wondered if he ruined it. Seems ruined to me. I understand that every little thing in a movie does not have to be explained, but it helps if there are unseen explanations that the director knows about. It seems Nicolas Winding Refn didn't have a clue and was just blindly fumbling along.

I keep reading posts about how movies like this make you think. I do not need movies to make me think. There's nothing a pretentious, conceited director can make me think about that I haven't already thought about. How shallow do you have to be to need a movie to make you think?