Coma 2024

Art & Craft

The film’s art and craft display bold experimentation but suffer from a lack of discipline. Film Threat (95) praises its varied styles and unique visual collage, and Slant (88) highlights an avant‑garde blend of live‑action and animation. In contrast, The Guardian (40) and Variety (30) describe it as unfocused and undisciplined, draining energy. Consequently, artistic ambition is evident, yet uneven execution drags the overall craft.

Character & Emotion

Character and emotion are presented with nuanced performances amid an abstract narrative, yet emotional connection remains uneven. The Film Stage (83) notes perceptive, troubling portrayals, and Kathy Fennessy’s positive take highlights generational trauma depth. Variety’s criticism points to difficulty caring, suggesting weak attachment, while user feedback mentions solid enjoyment despite generic characters. Thus, character work offers insight for some viewers but fails to consistently engage emotionally.

Story & Flow

The story and flow combine innovative structure with uneven pacing. The New York Times (80) applauds its thrilling, chaotic form, and Film Threat (95) lauds the balance of comedy and drama. Slashfilm (70) calls it amorphous, IndieWire (50) suggests limited archival value, and Variety (30) finds the narrative incomprehensible. Hence, the story is ambitious but its coherence fluctuates, leading to a mixed reception.

Sensory Experience

Coma’s sensory experience stands out through an eclectic audiovisual collage. Slant (88) praises its avant‑garde mélange, while Film Threat (95) commends the balance of comedy, drama, and style. Screen Daily (70) notes growing cohesion, though Variety (30) finds it hard to care, indicating sensory overload. Overall, the film’s sound and visual design are striking, albeit occasionally overwhelming.

Rewatch Factor

The rewatch factor is limited by the film’s demanding abstraction. The Playlist (83) calls it a "delirious marvel," suggesting lasting intrigue, whereas IndieWire (50) sees modest archival value. User alex (80) finds solid enjoyment but notes a slow start, and Variety (30) deems analysis unrewarding, reducing repeat appeal. Consequently, while some may revisit for its boldness, overall replay value remains moderate.