スキナマリンク
監督:Kyle Edward Ball
Two children wake up in the middle of the night to find their father is missing, and all the windows and doors in their home have vanished.
スキナマリンクの視聴方法
スキナマリンクの評価とレビュー
- Ernesto Diaz2025年8月26日I would pay to not have wasted my time watching ceilings
- johnrodan2026年2月11日Taps into what makes darkness and creaking wood so terrifying for a child. Not enough substance to justify its runtime.
- leeartlee2025年11月24日Maybe i just wasn’t paying close enough attention or I was in a bad mood but, no exaggeration, this is the worst movie I’ve seen in years. Nothing f’ing happens. Once and awhile there will be weird noise or a darkened camera angle but this really felt like a first year student film where they had no script prepared. Not scary. Not interesting. Just bad.
- Spanktacular2025年7月26日This is a grad student film that would be seen as part of an MFA graduation gala, or seen behind a dark curtain in a contemporary art gallery. Pitching it as a horror movie and then watching normies get mad is clever marketing. I didn't like it as a horror movie (2/5), but it's a cool piece of art (4/5). Therefore, my subjective 3/5.
- Lk2025年10月26日Put yourself in the mind of a child experiencing something that is impossible to comprehend and remove everything that could ease tension for even a moment. In a world where we are constantly bombarded by stimuli this film does an excellent job of pushing your cognition to its limits. From the sound mixing to the film quality and angles, you are begging for clarity to ease the tension. A perfectly visible frame is comfortable. Clear and audible conversation is comfortable. Personally I found it to be a more physically and mentally taxing film. As a lifelong horror fan I welcomed the experience and was not disappointed. It felt like the perfect representation of a childhood nightmare..not clear enough to be described but disturbing enough to leave a mark.
- jackmeat2025年11月11日My quick rating - 2.8/10. I saw a trailer a while back and thought this one looked creepy. It is one of my least favorites, a found footage type flick, sorta. It is more just constant camera cuts showing different angles of footage. Sometimes these angles appear to be from the children's perspectives. Very "experimental" type of film style, for lack of a better way to put it. So far seems to be a massive test of the viewer's patience. I don't mind a slow burn, especially since the strange way of visually capturing the story was something unique. However, for 100 minutes of so many shots of absolutely nothing that end up leading to nothing, you will find yourself angry, not entertained. I had to check reviews after this one since I honestly couldn't believe this made the theaters, and people are giving POSITIVE reviews? Some say shit like "If you don't like this film, you just don't understand it." Yes, pretentious fool, that is the problem. I understood it perfectly. There was literally nothing to it. Couple a non-existent plot with two children who are trapped in their home without parents (or doors anymore), and what could've been creepy turns out to be a waste of time. When the kids try to talk to clue you in on their predicament, the audio is so low, and they insist on whispering, so you cannot tell what they are saying. You'd better be able to turn those subtitles on, or you won't even know about those doors and windows. This just seems like one of those flicks that had some good marketing and banked on that, since the movie sucks. If it wasn't for the interesting editing to show the lack of story, I would be rating it even lower. Don't waste your time.
- rg94002025年10月26日I am going through the Science of Scare list which ranks horror movies based on viewer heart rates and heart rate variance. This movie is ranked an incredibly high 3 on that list. I'm not going to mince words. I hated this movie with a passion. The entire film is these hazy dark grainy film shots from a static camera that sometimes pans and other times just remains still as there are quick cuts. Most of the film is so obscure that you can't see what is happening, which is the purpose (and I will get to this later). There are no real actors. You do sometimes see a person in the camera, but mostly the camera focuses on odd angles of hallways and rooms. The sound design is also incredibly muted. You sometimes hear heavy breathing or static or the background of a cartoon. The majority of the dialogue is so soft that it is accompanied by subtitles, and you literally cannot hear a lot of it. The other dialogue is spoken so loudly that it also becomes hard to parse. My description of the technical details of this movie is a longwinded way to say that this movie doesn't really have any substance. It is purposefully obtuse and opaque. It wants you to fill in the blanks. And sure, it does try to recreate those types of moments from your childhood where you might have seen dark rooms or heard strange sounds from the house and crafted horrors from your imagination. Cool. I'm sure that's why it resulted in higher heart rates for viewers. However, this does not make a movie, especially not one at 1 hour and 40 minutes. There is no real plot, the characters feel like stand-ins for the viewer. It is an incredibly tedious exercise that should have been a 10 minute student film and not much more. Honestly, you might as well just go sit in your basement and close the lights and just sit there for 90 minutes instead of watching this movie. You'll get the same results. Better yet, go play a game like PT or MADiSON that captures the uncanny horrors of long hallways so much better and never does so while testing your patience. This is clearly an artistic experiment, and I am sure there are those that applaud it for being so unconventional. The problem I have is that it could have had the same impact while being an actual movie that was engaging. Maybe this is meant to be a blank canvas for the viewer's imagination, and director Kyle Ball was concerned that any semblance of a real movie would intercede on that experience. I don't particularly care though because that's not why I watch movies. I loathe this, and the only reason it isn't getting a rating of 1 is because there were one or two jump scares that did get me. That's it.
- Igor Rusko2025年10月22日What is this? Absolutely unbearable.
- KGM SOSA2025年10月11日Ok, now I’m mad!! I just finished watching Skinamarink, yes, all 100 minutes of it (even though I knew it sucked after about 5 minutes). I don’t even know how to explain this film (100 Minutes of Ceiling Shots), but I’ll try. It’s an analog horror shot in grainy VHS style; the grainy footage is coupled with that scratchy sound a vinyl record makes before the music begins, & it gets really tedious very quickly. Plot-wise, it’s about two children who wake up to find their parents missing & the windows & doors are gone too, as well as physical stuff in the house (not just toys, but like…the toilet & stuff). It’s honestly gay as, quite literally the lamest excuse for a horror movie ever. The director/producer (& everything else) for this movie has some potential though, because the movie is kind of unsettling. The problem, however, is that it tries to be artistic, eccentric & astute but it’s so obvious that it’s trying to do that, so it fails in that endeavour & just feels pretentious. The angles are tediously stupid, like, the whole movie is basically just the ceiling, wall, & skirting boards shot at random obscure angles. On top of that, literally half of the film is just you watching cartoons on the TV in the living room while they glitch, loop & pause. This movie isn’t just a “slow burn”; it actively fights against you enjoying it (literally sucks). You have no idea what’s going on for most of it & it’s a slow trot to the end. However, to its credit, the director (Kyle Edward Ball) from what I understand is a new on the block, just starting out director & producer with little on his resume. Given his creativity & originality, I’d really love to see more horror movies from him. So if you’re reading this, Kyle, please don’t be offended, you will make great films if you stay thinking outside the box like this. However, this one just wasn’t my cup of tea (upon a first-time watch). I will, however, buy the DVD to support you & really hope to see another horror film from you in the near future. Rating: ★★★☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ (3/10)
- Kevin Ward2025年7月4日I feel like I just played a CD-ROM point and click mystery game on Windows 3.0, only without the “excitement” of doing the pointing and clicking. I’m all for experimental films, but holy $%*t this film tried my patience. At least have the decency to make the runtime less than 90 minutes long. At 1 hour and 40 minutes long, by the time I got to the 30 minute mark I was lamenting that there was no 2x speed function available. I was not scared in the slightest, just bored to tears.
スキナマリンクに関するトリビア
スキナマリンクは2023年2月2日に公開されました。
スキナマリンクはKyle Edward Ballが監督を務めました。
スキナマリンクの上映時間は1h 40mです。
スキナマリンクはDylan Pearceがプロデューサーを務めました。
Two children wake up in the middle of the night to find their father is missing, and all the windows and doors in their home have vanished.
スキナマリンクの主要人物はKevin (Lucas Paul), Kaylee (Dali Rose Tetreault), Dad (Ross Paul)です。
スキナマリンクはGと評価されています。
スキナマリンクはホラー, 謎映画です。
スキナマリンクは、視聴者によって10点満点中4.4点をつけられています。
スキナマリンクの予算は$15,000です。
スキナマリンクの興行収入は$213.1万です。