Evil Does Not Exist

"Evil Does Not Exist" offers a profoundly unique movie-watching experience. It's hard to imagine a work with more radically different narrative tones flowing into one another. It's almost miraculous that it manages to seem a cohesive whole but it does just that. The only previous work I'd seen by writer-director Ryûsuke Hamaguchi had been "Drive My Car", an undisputedly good and "prestigious" movie that predictably won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film. As much as was admirable about that piece it felt forced and restrained. Hamaguchi, I suspected, was holding back his creative impulses and surrendering to a conventional theatricality (which, to be fair, is part of that film's theme) for the sake of wider recognition. Except for a few echoing images of unbridled nature, no one would suspect the same filmmaker was at work with "Evil Does Not Exist" if they hadn't been informed. Here Hamaguchi unleashes his vision in an uncompromising, at moments ferocious manner. If one is determined to define this movie in terms of genre, then it would be considered a work of magical realism, a style that I often struggle to appreciate. The closest comparison I can make is to the cinema of Apichatpong Weerasethakul, though that Thai master's magical realms are far more benevolent than that of "Evil". Having said all that, for most of the film the tone is one that I can only describe as dry humanism. Almost a comedy, it straight-facedly pillories two of the main characters, yuppies representing a Tokyo developer trying to build a resort in a rural community, but then gradually humanizes them. Indeed, the tone grows increasingly affirmational until a sudden, unsettling turn that leads to a vaguely terrifying finale. Composer Eiko Ishibashi, who co-conceived the story with Hamaguchi, can be considered a co-autuer with the director. The only film I can think of that owes as much to its score as does this one is "In the Mood for Love". Ishibashi's music begins and ends "Evil", sometimes reimposing itself on it assertively, almost clumsily. But the narrative comes to feel almost secondary to the score, as if it were the music's accompaniment, or perhaps an attempt to adapt this wordless music into human narrative. One of this film's obvious themes is humanity's relationship to the natural world and its secrets and wonders. Cinematographer Yoshio Kitagawa's camera graces the terrain of the forrest and village that is the film's setting with a kind of religious reverence. Largely static images grace these rural landscapes waiting for them to reveal their secrets- or not- at their leisure. To call Kitagawa's work here cinematography feels almost wrong. This is great nature photography as captured by a motion picture camera. My only reservation about "Evil" comes from its very uniqueness. This world is perhaps a bit too magical to seem like a commentary on our own. This, for me, is part of what makes magical-realism a tricky genre to pull off. In "Drive My Car" the performances Hamaguchi coached were very method-theatrical. Here, the director's approach to his performers is positively Bressonian. This has the effect of leaving the characters to seem, despite mostly naturalistic dialog, like ideas more than figures in which we emotionally invest (much as with Bresson's characters). In the work of Bresson, however, we are at least able to situationally relate to the characters as the events are essentially naturalistic. The combination here of monotone and mysticism does not leave room for the emotional impact the film might have had. However, if the experience of "Evil" is somewhat academic, it is also unforgettable.

I believe everyone who watched this movie was shocked by the ending. At first, I couldn't understand it at all, and I thought it might be lacking explanation. However, as I began to connect the various clues within the movie, I realized that it leads to a compelling interpretation. I believe this movie can be interpreted in various ways, but I'd like to share my interpretation here. First, I'll start with the conclusion: "Takumi intended to die together with Hana and incapacitated Takahashi." In the film, Takumi said "Deer are timid animals, so they never attack people. But a wounded deer might." Considering Takumi as a wounded deer, his sudden act of violence in the final scene makes sense. So, what does it mean for Takumi to be wounded? Physically, he's healthy, but emotionally, he's deeply wounded by the loss of his wife (likely due to her death). There are photos of his wife in his house, suggesting not much time has passed since her death. Despite appearing to live normally, Takumi frequently forgets to pick up Hana from after-school care and makes other mistakes, indicating his emotional struggle. The daughter, Hana, is also wounded by her mother's death. Hana doesn't play with other children at all; she walks through nature. While at home, Hana tries to get Takumi's attention but is treated coldly. Hana is not only unable to interact with other children but is also rejected by her father. One of the reasons Takumi decided on murder-suicide is to relieve himself and his daughter from suffering. The other reason is to restore balance between nature and humans. The developer planning to build a glamping facility along the deer path may seem like destroyers of nature, but in reality, the local residents, including Takumi, are doing something even more terrifying-they are killing deer with guns. This fact is starkly presented through the image of the wounded deer. Paradoxically, Hana's innocent approach to the deer further emphasizes that both she and Takumi are none other than destroyers of nature. Therefore, Takumi might have felt that they shouldn't be alive. Takumi said, "Balance is important." A double suicide to save both from suffering might restore a bit of balance between nature and humans. Takumi's decision to strangle Takahashi is to prevent interference with his intended murder-suicide. There might have been a thought that if the deer attacked Hana, it would be restoration of balance, since humans had shot the deer. Takumi didn't intend to kill Takahashi; he just incapacitated him. This is evident from Takahashi standing up at the end. Of course, there's a possibility Takahashi might die if left out in the cold. Hana is lying on the ground, bleeding from her nose, likely attacked by the injured deer. From Takumi's action of wiping Hana's nosebleed, it seems that Hana is not dead. If the intention were to imply Hana's death, it would be more natural to have blood flowing from her mouth, suggesting internal organ damage. Takumi picks up Hana and leaves the scene. Here, Takumi walks in a different direction from the way they came, strongly supporting the interpretation of a murder-suicide. Lastly, regarding the meaning of the title, the director mentioned in an interview that the audience is prohibited from simply seeing the eruption of violence in the ending as evil because of the title. The "eruption of violence" likely refers directly to Takumi strangling Takahashi. However, in my interpretation, murder-suicide, namely Takumi killing Hana, is also implied. The anguish we feel from being forbidden to see Takumi's act of killing Hana as evil is, I believe, one of the true meanings behind the title. If you're interested in a more detailed analysis, please click on the link in my bio.

Samuel Adebayo

Evil Does Not Exist_360P

Evil Does Not Exist_1080P_480P

Evil Does Not Exist_1080P

I guess I just don't jive with Ryusuke Hamaguchi. This is the second film of his I've seen (the other was "Drive My Car") and neither of them made me feel much of anything. No, that's not completely accurate. "Evil Does Not Exist" did make me feel something, namely grumpy and frustrated. I'm going to whine for a minute. Right now most of the movies in theaters that are made ostensibly to entertain large groups of people are crap. They're either Marvel movies, which I hate, or they're the fourth installment of some series that was never that good to begin with. So then I turn to critics to see what they are giving high scores to, and they are giving high scores to movies like "Evil Does Not Exist." I am a cinephile and have seen a lot of different movies in my time. I like to be challenged, and I can like having to do most of the work myself when appreciating a movie. But I also know that I need variety, and not a steady stream of any one thing. I feel like every movie lately that experts are telling me is good is like this one. It seems almost designed to be as un-entertaining as possible. Like moving the camera too much, or having anything resembling narrative momentum, or moving the film forward at anything other than a glacial pace is capitulating to the dumb ass masses. And then don't even get me started on these endings. The nice word I suppose is "enigmatic," but really they're just baffling and often feel arbitrary, like the filmmaker picked a random place to just end the movie because they didn't have a better idea. Where are the films that intelligent adults can enjoy but that also feel like entertaining movies? The other night I came across "Tootsie" on TCM and I felt like a parched desert wanderer stumbling across an oasis of refreshing, crystal clear water. Ok, done whining. I'm going to give Hamaguchi the benefit of the doubt and say the problem is me. Maybe I wasn't in the mood. He's clearly a smart guy. I don't have to "get it" in the conventional sense of the word. I can just let it wash over me and see how it makes me feel. But again, it made me feel nothing except restlessness. Like are you trying my patience on purpose just to be a jerk? Would it kill you to frame actors sometimes so that we can actually see their faces while they're having a five-minute long conversation? Do we need such long, static shots of tree branches, and people chopping wood, and filling water jugs? I really do get it. We're exploring the relationship here between man and nature, and the fact that we all, just like the animals in the forest, are driven primarily by the instinct for survival. We will do what we must for what we think are our best interests and justify those actions in whatever way we can. So I'm really not incapable of enjoying or understanding a slow burn movie. I just ask that it gives me a reason to keep watching it. I don't know what the ending means, and I don't care enough about this movie to try to figure it out. It really needed Dustin Hoffman tearing off a wig and shocking a room full of soap opera actors by revealing himself to be a man. That would have made as much sense to me in the context of this movie as the ending I actually did get. Grade: C.

No pun intended - the movie starts off and sets the mood right away. This is nature, this is life here. Do you have the patience to follow, to just watch? The first 10 minutes or so "nothing" happens. Chopping wood, collecting water - but again this is supposed to get your mindset into the tune of the movie. The english title can mean a few things. As in nothing evil exists in this part of the world. We do not even see a police station or anything of that sort. And while there is no reason for one (no apparent at least), you could argue that once the "intruders" come, it would make sense to have them there - just to show presence or for safety reasons. So the community seems to work without any higher power - there may not be a mayor either. We do not see a clear leader here. We see different types, a wise one, a hot headed one and so forth. And our main character from the beginning who seems to connect or be connected with most people. And animals for that matter. We do not get too much backstory for the characters (the viewer has to fill in the blanks for them and a few other story and character beats) ... just one from that community who says at a meeting that she came from the town, but feels like she is part of everyone in that village now. Nature vs. Men .. and nature within men (and women for that matter of course). The movie may be a slow burn, but it does a great job telling a story and giving us a check. Have we forgotten where we have come from? Is money more important than the well being of others? Because whatever happens at the top, is having consequences to those at the bottom (that come after them) ... yes this is not only true for rivers, but for society as a whole too. A movie that may test your patience, but will reward you in the end ... speaking of which: while the cinematography does a great job (and may suggest certain things I reckon if you look long and hard at some of the "pictures"), it puzzles us a bit ... what actually happened? What do we believe is going on? This will be in the eye of the beholder. Do our eyes conceive us? I reckon we will see or rather interpret what we want - morally and otherwise ... way more interesting and intriguing than you may think after the first couple of minutes ...

Extremely weak plot. I watched this because I'm interested in Eco themed films, the premise was average and the script could be used in the future on Eastenders in a two part Christmas special. Unsure as to how this got made. Someone has got their foot in the door somewhere. To say something positive I did find the Playmode employees interesting as characters and the cinematography was serviceable, which one would expect at this level. The pretentious editing cutting out the music was amateurish however, and the score was OK.. I would recommend watching this if it was on TV at home but to see it in the cinema would be a waste.

Ryusuke Hamaguchi has made some interesting movies in his career like Drive My Car, Happy Hour, and Asako I & II. While I haven't been wowed by his works, I appreciate many aspects of his style and approach. Throughout, this movie has some wonderful colorful productions, camerawork, sound designs and atmosphere which helped add layers of the nature landscapes and environment. The narrative provides some interesting themes of nature, conflict of interest, humans and humans vs. Nature issues and explores some interesting aspects that are strong. The performances are all pretty good as well. However, I am a bit underwhelmed with certain aspects as I found some of the themes feeling a little uneven to work Hamaguchi is wanting to express. Especially when it comes to the characters as while I did found some of the characters interesting, I didn't feel too emotionally connected with their personalities and purpose which made it a bit difficult to fully invest at times. The soundtrack is wonderful and the dialogue is solid. The film does suffer some pacing issues and with an ending that leaves to many interpretations which may be frustrating for some. Overall, despite it's flaws, it's mediative and nature experience made this movie pretty good.