Maybe I'm just being vapid here, but I'm still pretty lost.
Was Mr.Jack supposed to be the devil?
Or some other allegory of such?
What I got was that, Stephen was actually the one threatening, killing, and at the end dieing. While Mr. Jack was somewhat not real or something close to a type of guarden angel that allowed Stephen to make up his own decisions. When Stephen would see Mr. Jack do something, Stephen would actually be the one doing it because he was crazy.
shareWhat I got from this was that it was a project where everyone involved in it, on every level seemed to be doing their best to define blatant self-indulgence. The writer cobbled together a bunch of meandering pointless little scenes which were more or less vehicles for him to either play with style or just spout off Silver-Lake coffee house-dweller non-wisdom.
At no point did any of this mess approach having any sense of cohesion, plot, direction or even a coherent central theme. What's worse is the director seems to think that this is a serious work of art and essentially puts together a high budget student film that rates a straight 'C' for a grade. Perhaps the funniest thing about this film is that it attracted some decent on-screen talent. It's only funny until you realize that they are only in it to give masturbatory, goofy, actory and again self-indulgent performances because they know nobody is going to really see it. I'm sorry that I did.
Bad cinema.
You don't get it because it was pretentious bullsh!t through and through.
kierstin-happyphotos.blogspot.com