I love this movie. I think it's a masterpiece. To everybody leaving negative reviews, I highly, highly recommend looking up a YouTube video by Chris Stuckmann called Enemy Explained. It's very long, but it gave me a definite grasp of what the movie was about and what was actually happening.
I admit, I had no idea what was going on until I watched that video. But that's because the movie itself isn't supposed to flat out explain what's going on. That's not the point.
This is a film that demands your attention and provokes actual thought and discussion. If you would rather just watch a movie to turn your brain off and pass the time, this is not for you, but that doesn't make this a bad film, and you shouldn't mark it as such.

Love movies and books where you have to read or watch a dozen more movies or books in order to get an inkling of what the writer was trying to say. This is one of them. Freudian spiders, Hegel, bah! Most people will watch this
movie with the expectation that the plot will eventually emerge. What plot? A day in the life of a bored college
instructor finds his double, a failed actor. What to do, what to do. Throw in a spider or two, a mysterious key and a whole lot of ennui and you have it. Many have called this a masterpiece. To have one, you have to say something, not just come up with a boatload of symbolisms. The only thing more boring than watching this again would be sitting in a room full of people analyzing this movie, trying to make it into more than it is.

Enemy's ending blew my mind. I haven't been this rocked by a conclusion since the Prestige, one of my fave films of all time. That being said, Enemy is not a perfect movie like The Prestige. But it is one heck of a thinking person's film, especially after the film is over. Be warned: if you're not interested in metaphorical storytelling and puzzles, this isn't the film for you. I nearly hated it until I researched the ending and read some of the many theories about the story.

Is it about clones, twins, or multiple personalities? There's evidence to support any of such theories, but the spiders are the main thing that you need to focus on. Jake Gyllenhaal has been a role with his choice of roles, and this is perhaps his best yet. I chose this film because of my appreciation for Dennis Villenauve's work. This is his most challenging film, but it's well worth the effort of viewing and wrestling with the meaning of the film, which doesn't give you any direct answers. You have to put the puzzle together and come out with your own understanding. (The internet helps, lol)

Overall, masterful work. I'm a true believer in Dennis Villenauve at this point, and after this move, Sicario, Prisoners, and The Arrival, I will watch anything he produces.

This film was loosely based on the novel, "The Double", by the Portuguese author Jose Saramago who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1998. Yeah--probably like me, you haven't read many of his novels since they were Portuguese...
The cast had questions about the meaning of the script and the director said any of them could ask the author what he had in mind and the author said he'd be glad to respond. Then the author died. I suspect had he lived and the cast asked him questions, he would have told them he didn't have answers anyway, as he wanted the reader to be an active participant in the meaning of the story. Therefore some things are left ambiguous.
His death also freed up the director and script writing, to depart a little more from the novel without having to worry about the author feeling offended.

I got this in Blu-Ray mainly on the strength of the cast and what sounded like an intriguing plot line: a man finds that he has a double in the world. Now I'd like to switch to what it's like to watch the film, and emphasize a few points:

The film presents three statements (in print or vocally--there are some other statements that are visual, that I'll come back to) which should be seen as related to each other and to the story as a whole. The first one appears in print on the black screen before the movie proper begins: Chaos is order yet unrecognized. The second and third come from the history-teacher Gyllenhaal's mouth: "That totalitarian states all have one overarching goal: control of power. How they achieve it varies somewhat from case to case, but it usually involves controlling education, controlling media, or freedom of speech and financial controls, and may go as far as control over life or death <but this means the prior controls aren't working>. AND THIS IS A THEME IN HISTORY. It occurs over and over again." Statement three <getting closer to the plot-line> "That Hegel said all really important events occur twice. To that Karl Marx added: The first time is a tragedy, and the second time is a farce."

This is like watching the least horrifying horror film you've ever seen. That is, there's no blood, no exorcist, no clear supernatural powers, no murders etc. --yet the overall effect is rather like watching a stylish horror movie.

Or it may be compared to watching a dream--a somewhat disturbing dream--on your TV. Things start up midway through for no apparent reason, and the story ends without quite ending, like you woke from a dream without knowing exactly what the ending was supposed to be.

The history-teacher version of Gyllenhaal starts the story off. He has a live-in girlfriend and seems as interested in philosophy as in history, but he also looks profoundly depressed--like he feels there must be some greater meaning to life and it hasn't been revealed to him yet. Then in a seemingly casual conversation someone recommends a film to him. He rents the movie, and partway through, in a small role, he sees: HIMSELF. Fascinated he has to back it up, study the face, find the actor's name in the credits--then try to find out how to contact the actor who looks like he could be an identical twin <of course, both history teacher and actor are played by Gyllenhaal, who alters nothing except his clothing to depict the differences>.

But this isn't actually where the movie begins either. It actually begins with a scene that looks as if it could have been culled from "Eyes Wide Shut", or way before that from the writings of the Marquis de Sade. This opening vignette plays out without a word being spoken. And in fact, that's the way quite a bit of the movie plays out.

Much of the "story" is told visually--whether depicting the environment, or simply the expressions on faces. Dialog is kept to the minimum needed to keep the story going forward. There are long sections of silence, in which often it's history-teacher Gyllenhaal simply sits thinking, looking troubled. The audience is left to fill in the blanks as to what exactly he's thinking.

There are several visual motifs which predominate. Very early you'll see the spider/spider-web motif. Then, there is the color-tone: almost all of it soft, glowing gold on dark brown or black. Simultaneously looking both luxurious and dangerous. Finally, there's the "space-goat" motif <just to throw in a totally obscure reference.> Images that aren't explained, leaving the audience again to reach its own ideas on whether they are meant to actually depict some hidden reality, or whether Gyllenhaal is hallucinating, or whether they are just images he sees in his mind's eye as metaphors for reality. Some look like they could have been plucked out of "War of the Worlds", and some connect vaguely to "The Matrix" and the idea that what you see about you isn't the real world.

I don't want to give away any more plot, I'll just say that the principle actors include Gyllenhaal x 2 and his two significant others <who also look superficially alike>, both beautiful blondes with blue eyes and very fair skin: Melanie Laurent and Sarah Gadon. Oh of course: the cinematography makes very little use of CG or such tricks, but is nicely done and beautiful in places. The soundtrack: one wouldn't necessarily want to call it "music" or certainly not songs. The soundtrack, when it's layered on, always contributes to the sense of ominous suspense.

I hope you enjoy the film, as I did--it helps if you aren't expecting it to tell a straightforward story but to be more like, as I said, watching a long dream on the screen. You're eyes are feeling heavy now...

I'm not one of those people who give a film a bad rating if I didn't like it or if it was disturbing or if it made me feel weird afterward - all of which I felt. Enemy is not supposed to be a feel good film. I get that. I also get the metaphorical premise and I get the guy was mentally ill, depressed, (schizophrenic?), and that he felt trapped in several "webs." Frankly, the movie was brilliant in several respects. The acting, lighting, camera work, directing, music, script. All brilliant. And I was gobsmacked by the denouement.
But I still want those two hours back. And oh lord, I wish I had known there would be spiders. I have such a severe case of arachnophobia, my husband has to fast forward through any scenes with those creatures. I'm not afraid of anything on the planet, but again, that's no reason to give a film a bad rating. Even if I almost fainted a couple of times.
Like The Godfather - one of the best films ever made - not all movies are supposed to leave us feeling serene and happy. Sometimes it's important to make yourself confront or watch something out of your comfort zone and watching Enemy was like that for me. I could have done without the final frame though.

What is wrong with these one star reviewers? Are you kidding me? This movie is awesome! Very cool and enigmatic. I loved it.

And despite the bizarre, dreamlike quality there are actual concrete and tangible clues to the mystery if you catch them. I got the central mystery but some of the symbolism I didn't understand at first. And I had no idea what that insane but awesome ending meant but I got the story and the themes they were presenting. Then I watched the bonus features and that enlightened things even further, then read some more stuff online and needless to say I feel like I have a pretty good handle on everything Enemy by now.

I love movies that make me want to do that. That make me want to dig in and learn everything I can about them. And this mystery can be proven with one true answer. I love those mysteries. I don't cotton to that David Lynch bs where nothing makes any sense and even he doesn't know what the real answer is. (Although Raymond Chandler famously had no idea when asked who killed the chauffeur in The Big Sleep even though he wrote it.)

This is a great movie and I have no idea how so many people could give it bad reviews. They must have terrible taste. The performances were great, the cinematography, the music all helped to convey that building tension and feeling of dread.

Dark, compelling character study is like a sinister version of The Double Life Of Veronique. A meek college professor's curiosity gets the best of him when he makes the dangerous discovery that he has a doppelganger in a struggling actor, and this situation slowly escalates out of control. Director Denis Villeneuve clearly shows his potential and ability to photograph architecture, and control atmosphere that makes his transition to science fiction a natural choice. Borrowing heavily form the styles of David Lynch and David Cronenberg (not a bad thing in my opinion) to create a perverse and surreal puzzle. I especially liked the arachnophobia-inducing symbolic motif, visual imagery, intriguing story, memorable denouement, and a nightmarish ending that I won't be forgetting anytime soon. Blu ray also contains a making-of short. Also recommended: Villeneuve's Arrival, Blade Runner 2049, and Dune, certainly David Cronenberg's Dead Ringers and David Lynch's Lost Highway.

This movie will mess with your mind, in the best way. The film is a superb thriller that is dark and creepy without using any gore to accomplish this, and trying to understand what's going on will make rewatches well worth it. The movie seeks to mess with your mind, and even if you're a movie person, you'll gonna want to look up an explanation; especially if you don't like it. I found this one to be the best most thorough explanation, but be sure to watch it AFTER you watch the film. Despite the poor ratings on Amazon from people apparently hoping for something less thought provoking, the film has a 72% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

YouTube video by Chris Stuckmann called Enemy Explained

(Amazon prohibits me from linking the video)