I'm all for films that make the viewer think and draw their own conclusions or apply whatever the story is trying to say to their own interpretations of life and the world. This is a Haneke-esque parable consisting of two parallel but inverted storylines, one of which obviously consumes the majority of the run-time (hint: the one in the title).
Ahhhkay....so here we go. This one has excellent production value, a pretty decent cast (Dexter lol!), and good direction and cinematography. I really appreciated the soundtrack/score as this type of modern synth creepiness is often way overdone, but not in "John and the Hole."
Sorry to those who totally panned it with 1-Star reviews because "nobody would let their kid do that, he'd be in therapy" or "the ending made no sense" It's just not possible to draw those conclusions from this movie if you know anyone with kids that age in, well, this day and age - or if you remember being that age yourself. Perhaps that's one of the film's lessons anyway - Maybe parents *should* be more keenly observant of behaviors such as John's. Clearly this was a family of means, and they - unlike the vast majority of Americans - could afford psychotherapy or medical observation of their son. But sessions cost anywhere from $100-$300/hr and aren't covered by most insurance, IF you're lucky enough to have insurance in this country. But that's also part of the film's point and perspective: that of upper-middle class bourgeoise detachment from the real worries and experiences of life.
Sorry to get bogged down in that. On with the review...I'm glad I didn't have to shell out the dough for a theater experience (including drinks, popcorn, parking, etc.) to see this film. In fact I'm not even sure what format its theatrical release happens to be ("art house", major chain, small release, etc.) but I can tell you that it belongs in "art house" theaters. It's just too oblique for many viewers.
Overall, I appreciated it and found "John and the Hole" thought-provoking and scary at the same time. It wasn't intended to be "realistic" in terms of real world potentialities, actions or outcomes. It was a vague dive into the mentality of modern juveniles and what exactly defines "adulthood." For that reason, and that I wasn't ever tempted to get up or turn it off, I give it 6 Stars. Just know you're not signing up for a typical movie viewing experience and keep your expectations low. On the other hand, if you're a fan of "art house" cinema, you'll probably find many aspects of this film enjoyable as I did.
As for the ending, since so many seem to be completely unable to free themselves from their own frame of reference (see: the same people who reflexively give Haneke movies terrible reviews because they don't take the time to digest them in the context of contemporary American cinema), I feel compelled to defend it here. This wasn't supposed to be a realistic outcome; it was intended to be absurd, as was the rest of the film. That it's hidden behind a veil of upper middle class normalcy, excellent film-making and a languid, sometimes boring story arc is exactly the point of the exercise. It's also demonstrated in the parallel story that attempts to frame the ridiculousness of the main plot, at least from the point of view of an adult with a well-formed intellect and in-check id. In that sense it's a fantasy of adolescence in which "adulthood" consists only of going through a few boring and repetitive motions every day with no real moral , ethical or well-defined desired outcome - and - in the modern bourgeoise existence, little to no consequence to the outcome of those motions.
