I disagree respectfully.

IIRC the 2nd or third scene has Peral imagining herself courting and then having sex with a scarecrow she sees in a field. That's when the audience will decide the film is or isn't for them.

The film doesn't really do anything to explain the origin of pearls apparent hypersexuality, which was another problem I had with X as well. At the start of the film pearls just as fucked up as she was in X, and she acts naive 2/3 of the time and nuts 1/3 of the time. There's no attempt to explain or explore this, it just is.

I'd read about this amazing shot where goth states at the camera I'm an unbroken gaze and goes through a whole range of emotion.... >!it's the end titles of the film, with the crew names projected on top of her face!< What a waste.

Could not disagree with this take more, respectfully.

The scarecrow scene is not unexplained, nor is her sexuality. Like the rage inside her, Pearl’s sexuality is suppressed all the same. Rage from her being trapped in the life she’s living away from her dreams, and sexuality from her being trapped in the life she’s living away from her man.

As for the naivety and craziness of Pearl not being explored, that’s literally what the movie does is explore why these occur to the bitter end. Just because we don’t see her life up until that point doesn’t mean we don’t get a chance to understand how she got here and how she got to be how she is. It’s a very clear path that doesn’t require us to look into it further, and in fact the movie benefits by us not having to waste time looking backwards and instead imagining what it must have been like if this is how she is.

Not sure where the hatred is coming from for the range of emotions scene, it is truly masterful and perfectly placed in the movie. Plus the monologue given by Goth, wow. Hands down the best acting I’ve seen in a long, long time. Could not recommend this movie more.

From a Star is Born to Seabiscuit to Field of Dreams... I can think of hundreds of films where a character goes on to achieve public acclaim after an initial disappointment.

Not one of these films suggests that being rejected at an audition just once is a good reason to become a hypersexual serial killer.

That's what I mean by lack of exploration. Nothing Peral how's through warrants what she does. Not even close.

Now if you want to sell it as "just a horror film" like X thats fine, but selling it as a character study means you've got to be open to challenge on the character.

X and Pearl are my top two movies this year. Kudos to West and Goth Pearl is amazing!

The audition is not why she is a serial killer.

Why does that need to be explained? Shes obviously repressed and has been killing animals and typically that’s how serial killers start. I don’t need a explanation why she’s sexual, she was born that way. She being repressed and held down. She feels she is a star and is delusional. What more did you need?

Yes, and her mother said I know your secrets and it’s obvious that she has been this way for a long time, killing animals and such. She was born that way.

That isn't a compelling character study, and none of those things are explored in any depth in the film.

It’s your opinion and it didn’t work for you. I had zero issues and found the whole movie compelling. It just didn’t work for you and that’s cool.

What fascinated me to most about Pearl (which I really liekd) is how the score's composer succeded in copying John Barry...

I could not think of a worse take if I tried.

I really wanted to like X (love House of the Devil) , but I felt it all fell apart in the second half. So put me right off wanting to see Pearl.

I completely agree and that's why I missed Pearl in the theaters. Glad I rectified that.