EO (2022)

My 27 movie A-Z film-a-thon: Day 6

The idea is to watch and review 27 movies I would likely not have gotten to anytime soon. I am trying to knockout some well reviewed movies I am curious, but not overly excited, about.

My journey so far has been:

_ 13 Assassins (Takashi Miike, 2010) – 9/10

_All Dirt Roads Taste of Salt (Raven Jackson, 2023) – 7.5

_Blow Out (Brian De Palma, 1981) – 8.5

_Cold War (Pawel Pawlikosski, 2018) – 6.5

_Darby O’Gill and the Little People (Robert Stevenson, 1959) – 9 

This is one I had picked out from day 1. I was so sure I was going to like this. It seemed to be a little bizarre and bat crazy, usually my wheelhouse.

EO (2022) Review

For whatever reason, EO seems to drag on forever — which is odd, because it’s only 90 minutes long. I kept asking myself: Why is this so dull? It’s intriguingly filmed, but emotionally hollow.

The plot veers from one extreme turn to another, often stretching believability. Time and again I found myself repeating, “This is unlikely.” If this were a film about magical realism or something genuinely inspirational, I might have adored it. The one compelling thread is that EO, having once been a circus performer, has the temperament and training to keep escaping trouble. He genuinely likes people — and that’s what keeps him alive.

In that sense, EO reminded me most of The Pianist. Adrien Brody’s survival hinges on his exact combination of virtues, just as EO survives by possessing the right qualities at the right time. But whereas The Pianist builds its world with weight and consequence, EO feels more like a series of self-conscious flourishes.

That brings me to the style. Why is there a red filter over so many scenes? Why does the film periodically burst into epilepsy-triggering strobe effects? Do donkeys only see in strobing reds? These choices come off more like art-house affectation than anything rooted in the film’s themes or perspective.

I wanted EO to feel necessary or believable — ideally both. Instead, it offers implausible set pieces that don’t hold up under scrutiny. The football scene, where EO is brutally attacked by rival fans with metal poles, is particularly absurd. There’s no documented history of such animal abuse occurring after a loss, and the fans themselves don’t even seem that emotionally invested in the match to begin with. Then, late in the film, we get a cameo from Isabelle Huppert that leads to an unearned and out-of-nowhere incest subplot. It’s baffling.

The idea of EO excited me. On paper, it sounds like a children’s film with heart — a donkey’s odyssey across a hostile world. But it lacks the soul, wonder, or even plausibility to make that concept land. It’s not touching. It’s not believable. It’s just a beautifully shot, meandering series of affectations.

5/10