END

END is the latest offering from Michael "Savior of 3dmm" Sandford. He describes it as an "experiment" that he completed in a single day. The experimentation is readily apparent: the movie uses Liam Brocklehurt's "real-3D" alteration to the characters, as well as many novel cinematic techniques, most notably motion blur. These elements make END an interesting visual experience, but a lack of depth or deeper meaning holds this back from being more than essentially eye candy (though granted, a very impressive piece of eye candy)

The film opens with a pan shot of a drab, unremarkable city, centering in on a tall office building. Inside, our hero sits at a computer. The opening shots of the office interior are interesting: the partitioning into cubicles is exaggerated to the point where it appears to be no more than a maze, with the mindless employees, who wander seemingly aimlessly from nowhere to nowhere, simply mice trapped within it. Our hero notices a man disappearing into a wall, and then follows him, with dramatic consequences.

I want to make sure to reiterate one point: END looks very good. The dull brown tint of the office scenes work well in accentuating the feeling of aimlessness. After our hero goes through his "transformation," we are treated to a flurry of visual effects, such as the aforementioned motion blurs. Liam's "real 3D" effect looks nice...but I'm not really sure whether it fits this movie. Sandford essentially said he just used it because he prefers it, which is fair enough, and I expect it will soon become the standard, but it does make the characters look more "alive," which takes away somewhat from the impression of them the viewer is supposed to be getting. This normally wouldn't be a big deal, but because this effect has been used so infrequently, it really sticks out.

The music is fine, but I was less impressed by it than most others appear to have been. Other than this music, the movie had no dialogue or other sound whatsoever. I certainly appreciate how lack of sound can be used effectively, but I think this movie might have benefited from the inclusion of more sound after our hero's "transformation." It would have formed a nice contrast with the silence of his everyday life.

It is difficult, to say the least, to try to piece together exactly what happens in END. No attempt is made to explain what happens to our hero (which is fine; any such explanation would probably have ruined the pacing entirely). However, even on a symbolic level this movie doesn't make a lot of sense. Is our hero "freed" from his dull, aimless cubicle existence, ascending to some higher plane of being? Once he glimpses this new world, is his death a necessity to move forward? Maybe, but this interpretation is neither entirely convincing nor particularly original or compelling. His death at the end had no real dramatic effect on me, and left me more confused than anything else.

Trying to look too hard into this movie is a futile effort. It is what it is, a fun, visually-appealing short. Other commenters have noted some sort of "mystical allure" to this movie, pulling them in on a deeper level. I must sadly say I did not experience the same. END is an amazing visual experience, and plenty of fun to sit back and watch, but if you go looking for meaning, expect disappointment. I have no problem with enjoying a 3dmm movie on this level, but to call this movie "the best 3dmm short ever" is going a little far.

I realize this review is rather more critical than congratulatory, but I think most reviews ought to be, and Aaron and Compcat have already spoken at length to its various strengths. I don't want to give the impression that I disliked it - I do highly recommend it for the visual elements alone, but the "subtle genius" others have pointed out simply wasn't there for me.

[Aaron Haynes]

Fair enough. There isn't anything in the way of explanation and the symbolism is questionable at best (and certainly unintentional, according to Sandford). I noticed all the same things about its lack of symbolic depth, and if you go digging for it as you do in the fifth paragraph, it'd probably just be frustrating. It's great at evoking a mood and visual atmosphere. I find that kind of thing extremely compelling when it's done as well as this. It got past my analytical barriers completely.

[Bown]

I imagine Sandford is a little worried that people seem to want him to go in this sort of direction considering it really was only made to test that motion blur thingy out.

[Aaron Haynes]

He can go in whatever direction he wants. I just found this extremely cool.

[Gorosaurus]

I'll bet that Michael has the guts to do both styles IN THE SAME MOVIE OMG