Watch Visitor Q For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Pretty Good

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

I am a fan of disturbing, limits pushing movies. I can easily say i've watched many of the genre. So let me express my puzzlement about the comments on this movie.A movie must be really original and really deeply offensive for mankind to be called "disturbing". This movie may be psychologically disturbing in some level but has nothing original and deeply disturbing, if you think about it. Let's assume you will make a disturbing movie about a family, what would you write to disturb people? Incest sex, violence, shared crime? And of course the family members must be insane. Everyone can think of these. So, what is so original and disturbing about this movie? Sorry i can't see it.

Takashi Miike is a director that is more thoughtful than most critics would like to believe. The reason for this is his use of violence and sexual content that for some viewers draws attention away from the underlying themes that permeate his filmography. There's no denying that, for example, "Ichi the Killer" (2001) has good scriptwriting and interesting characters, but at times it seems like viewers will completely ignore those elements. What results is a weird kind of false dichotomy where fans will like the film due to its "cool" violence and detractors will dislike the film for its "shallowness." Both reactions seem a bit short-sighted in my eyes. I highly recommend Tom Mes's book entitled "Agitator", which is an excellent resource that describes and summarizes all of the fascinating content in Miike's films.Most ironically, "Visitor Q" is in a situation that is the exact opposite of "Ichi the Killer" because this movie has poor scriptwriting and wafer thin characters, yet has received much praise for its "insightful commentary on family dynamics" or whatever. I'm not buying it, at all. If we look closely we recognize that Miike stoops to repeatedly using contrived solutions to get characters from Point A (family dysfunction) to Point B (family function) without ever bothering to establish a convincing development of their relationships with each other. What results is a thoughtless film that portrays a sense of faux intelligence by using a few simplistic symbols.Let's take a look at some of the family members to see just how lazily Miike utilizes his contrived plot device: Visitor Q.DAUGHTER: An easy place to start, because there's virtually no development of her character whatsoever. She's likely a prostitute due to the general dysfunction of the family, but how does she break free from her current existence and re-enter the family dynamic? Visitor Q hits her in the head with a slab of concrete (off screen). I really can't think of a lazier, more contrived way of getting a character from Point A to Point B. Taking into consideration the fact that this artificial "solution" is invoked during the last five minutes only adds more evidence that Miike just wanted to finish the film.MOTHER and SON: I group these two together because both are connected by a simplistic symbol: breast milk. Yes Miike, I understand your use of breast milk as a representation of maternal instinct, and it is slightly clever – but only slightly. The son is bullied by his peers and takes it out on his mother by beating her. She takes the beating without putting up a fight because – well – we never know. In any case, the son really beats the stuffing out of her, abusing her on a nightly basis. What could possibly be the solution to this grim situation? Easy, Visitor Q milks her breasts! You see, once her nipples start spilling milk she becomes at one with her maternal instinct. Her son later bathes in the milk and he becomes at one with his instincts as a child. Their relationship is returned to a healthy one. Like I said, slightly clever, but Miike is unfortunately content with keeping this theme (which has enough substance to fill maybe 30 seconds of runtime) in an undeveloped embryonic state throughout this 84-minute film. He just milks it to death. FATHER: Although the daughter is the shallowest character, the father is easily the most muddled and poorly written. To be frank, the scriptwriting behind his actions is a complete mess. This is evident when reading the "Visitor Q" chapter in Tom Mes's aforementioned book. Usually Mes is very convincing in his analysis, but in this case it's obvious that he's reaching desperately to find some kind of logic behind this character's actions. He's apparently a bad father because of some kind of sexual impotence that prevents him from confidently taking his role in the family, but he has no problems banging his daughter at the beginning of the film so that angle makes no sense. Mes posits that his lustful desire for the corpse near the end of the film is the breakthrough moment (again referencing impotence), but it's a seemingly random revelation that has absolutely nothing to do with his role as a father or husband. How does having sex with a corpse change his relationship with his living wife? It makes no freakin' sense.The contrived nature of this film is also inadvertently pointed out by Mes when talking about the previous scene where the father watches his son get bullied with his colleague (a reference to his failure as a businessman). The father seems to have a real desire to have someone interject and save his son, which is different from previous scenes. Why does he feel this way? Well, because Visitor Q is holding the camcorder this time around. My friends, it doesn't get much more contrived than that.In a general sense I can appreciate the premise of portraying family values using themes that are typically considered exploitative (e.g., necrophelia, incest, etc.), but merely stitching these things together with contrived solutions doesn't qualify as quality filmmaking. Some might choose to defend the artificiality of this movie by stating that it's an intentional device used to provoke laughter, but if that's the case then the assertion of "insightful commentary on family dynamics" is thrown right out the window.If you want an effective blend of controversial sexual themes and dramatic elements, check out "Antenna" (2004), "Ichi the Killer" (2001), "Strange Circus" (2005), or "Moonlight Whispers" (1999). If you want good movies about dysfunctional families, check out "Tokyo Sonata" (2008), "Funuke Show Me Some Love, You Losers" (2007), "Rendan" (2001), or "Harmful Insect" (2001).

It's a damn pity you can't give movies negative scores, because that's exactly what this movie deserved.Involuntarily forced to watch the film, I was first faced with the question "When does it start?" followed immediately by "When does it end?". The plot is nonexistent, and the movie is simply a copy-pasting of violent and disturbing scenes together. It might be fun to watch as a comedy while hopped up on something, but other than that, you'd have more fun and gain more from slitting your wrists and soaking yourself in a hot-tub for the hour plus that the film takes to complete.Kuso. Or crap, in Japanese.

Visitor Q opens with the title card "Have you ever done it with your Dad?" Through a digital camcorder, we watch a hot young prostitute as she seduces her father into having sex with her. Her father is the one with the camera, filming the scene for a documentary on Japanese youths. Eventually it seems the father is letting himself be seduced, and she tells him the price. They have sex, the father is a preemie, and the disappointed daughter reacts by doubling the price. The father then realizes the camera has been on throughout.Then another title card appears: "Have you ever been hit on the head?" What follows is a single shot, the content of which one could reasonably guess based on the title of the scene.Among all the connecting vignettes, twisted and vomit-provoking as can be, there is one which very telling, but by this time, the viewer is so taken aback that finding significance in what one is seeing seems so bewildering. But the scene involves the father in one of his many frantic situations with his camera, running off to the camera about how he is supposed to feel. He doesn't know how. And neither do we.Miike is known for his go-for-broke gross-out violence, blood, guts and gore, not to mention all the perverse sexuality we tend to see in his countless films, and many of them he has churned out as simply as just a fun job. When asked why, for instance, in Dead or Alive, a character produces a bazooka from thin air, Miike laughed and said "Why shouldn't he have a bazooka? Don't all guys fantasize about bazookas?" With this direct-to-video shocker, the viewer realizes how aware he is of the effect of his content, and in so being, never indicates to us what we are supposed to feel. Most movies, most TV shows, certainly the news and most other forms of media output indicate through a basic film language what we are morally supposed to be feeling. Miike doesn't find this social phenomenon so easily done, and builds this $60,000 cult film around those aforementioned forms of media, exploiting the production's conception as an exercise in exploring the benefits of low-cost Digital Video to replicate documentary footage and home movies, which lathers the film with a sense of realism, which contrasts wildly with the freakishly bizarre scenes and pitch-black humor. He keeps this tense juxtaposition consistent and never allows us for a moment to sit back and relax, to shift into auto-pilot.As a result, watching Visitor Q becomes this grotesque experience throughout which we realize how unaccustomed we are to human perversions. Am I repulsed, exasperated, laughing, compassionate, overwrought and bewildered? I am never signaled. You're on your own. And consequently, I felt all of those things.